See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/292672531

Achievable rate and error performance of an amplify and forward multi-way

relay network in the presence of imperfect channel estimation

Article  in  IET Communications · January 2016

DOI: 10.1049/iet-com.2015.0484

CITATIONS READS

4 28

1 author:

Shama Naz Islam

Deakin University
26 PUBLICATIONS   78 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Shama Naz Islam on 18 October 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

IET Communications

Research Article

ISSN 1751-8628
Achievable rate and error performance of an Received on 3rd October 2014
Revised on 17th August 2015
amplify and forward multi-way relay network Accepted on 8th October 2015
doi: 10.1049/iet-com.2015.0484
in the presence of imperfect channel www.ietdl.org

estimation
Shama Naz Islam ✉
Research School of Engineering, College of Engineering and Computer Science, The Australian National University, Canberra 2601, ACT,
Australia
✉ E-mail: shama.islam@anu.edu.au

Abstract: In this paper, we investigate the impact of channel estimation error on the achievable common rate and error
performance of amplify and forward (AF) multi-way relay networks (MWRNs). Assuming lattice codes with large
dimensions, we provide the analytical expressions for the end-to-end SNR at the users and obtain upper bounds on
the achievable common rate for an AF MWRN. Moreover, considering binary phase shift keying (BPSK) modulation as
the simplest case of lattice codes, we obtain the average bit error rate (BER) for a user in an AF MWRN. The analysis
shows that the average BER is a linearly increasing function and the achievable common rate is a linearly decreasing
function of the channel estimation error. On the other hand, the average BER decreases and the achievable common
rate increases with increasing correlation between the true and the estimated channel. Also, we observe that the AF
protocol is robust against increasing number of users in terms of error performance. We show that when the decoding
user has better channel conditions compared to other users, AF relaying gives a better error performance and common
rate. Finally, simulation results are provided to verify the validity of our analysis.

1 Introduction
Recently, multi-way relay networks (MWRNs) have attracted
significant research interest due to their improved capacity and
spectral efficiency benefits [1–3]. MWRNs are characterised by
multiple users and a single relay, where the users can exchange
information with the help of the relay terminal. MWRNs have
interesting potential applications in teleconferencing, sensor
networks or satellite communication networks [2]. MWRNs allow
the benefits of network coding to be realised for multiple users
through generalising the concept of two-way relay networks
(TWRNs) [4–8] for multi-user networks. Another candidate
solution for realising the benefits of TWRNs in a multi-user
scenario is a multi-user TWRN, where multiple user pairs
exchange messages within the pairs [9–11]. In this paper, we limit
our study to the performance analysis of an MWRN, as this is a
more generalised version of a multi-user TWRN.
Prior research on MWRNs has focused on the performance
analysis of different relaying protocols such as amplify and
forward (AF) [12, 13], functional decode and forward (FDF) [3,
14] and compute and forward [15, 16]. However, in this paper, we
consider only AF MWRNs for their simpler implementation and
lower signal processing complexity at the relay. Recent studies on
AF MWRNs investigate error performance [13, 17], as well as
outage probability and sum rate [13, 18]. For complete message
exchange among all users, the users in an AF MWRN can
transmit either in a pairwise or a non-pairwise manner. It was
shown in [13] that a non-pairwise transmission strategy can offer
larger spectral efficiency at the cost of additional signal processing
complexity at the relay. However, pairwise transmission offers
lower complexity and simpler implementation which motivate us
to investigate pairwise transmission strategy in this paper.
To improve the energy efficiency of a pairwise transmission-based
MWRN, network coding schemes such as physical layer network
coding (PNC) have been proposed in the literature. In AF
MWRNs with PNC, at first, the relay receives the sum of the
signals, and then amplifies and forwards the received signal to the
users. It has been shown in [12, 13, 19] that for complete
cancellation of self-interference from the received signal so that
other users’ messages can be extracted, perfect channel state
information (CSI) at both the users and the relay are required.
However, practical system models for AF MWRNs need to
consider imperfect CSI.
Recently, the impact of imperfect channel estimation on AF
TWRNs has been quantified in terms of error performance with
relay selection [20, 21], optimum power allocation [19] and design
of suitable channel estimation algorithms [22, 23]. For MWRNs,
the impact of imperfect CSI on the error performance of FDF
relaying protocol has been investigated in [24]. However, the
impact of imperfect channel estimation on AF MWRNs has not
been addressed in the prior works on MWRNs.
To improve the achievable data rate of an MWRN, structured
codes such as lattice codes have been proposed recently for FDF
relaying [14, 25]. Lattice codes can achieve the capacity of
additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN) channel [16, 26] and
allow higher data rates compared with uncoded transmission.
Though the achievable rate of pairwise FDF MWRNs with lattice
codes has been investigated in [14] for perfect CSI, the rate
analysis for lattice-coded AF MWRNs has not been performed yet
in the literature.
In an AF MWRN with pairwise transmission, if a user incorrectly
decodes another user’s message, then the mean of the received signal
of the following user is shifted, leading to incorrect detection in the
subsequent decoding operations. This problem, termed as error
propagation, has been studied for FDF and AF MWRNs in [17]
for AWGN and fading channels with perfect CSI and it has been
shown that the error performance degrades significantly due to
error propagation. Moreover, when there is imperfect CSI, the
additional estimation error worsens the error performance by a
larger degree. To the best of our knowledge, the impact of channel
estimation error on the error performance of AF MWRNs with
lattice codes has not been addressed yet in the literature.

IET Commun., 2016, Vol. 10, Iss. 3, pp. 272–282

272 & The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2016
 On the basis of the above discussion, we address the following
open problems:
† How can the impact of channel estimation error on the achievable
rate and error performance of lattice-coded AF MWRNs be
characterised?
† What is the relative impact of the decoding user’s and the other
users’ channel conditions on the achievable common rate and error
performance of AF MWRNs?
† What is the impact of the users’ overall channel conditions on the
achievable rate and error performance of AF MWRNs?
Addressing the above open problems, we make the following
novel contributions in this paper:
† Considering an L-user AF MWRN that employs sufficiently large
dimension lattice codes, we derive the achievable common rate
expressions for imperfect channel estimation. Moreover, we
investigate binary phase shift keying (BPSK) modulation as the
simplest case of lattice code-based transmissions to derive the
expressions for the average bit error rate (BER) of AF MWRNs.
The derived expressions can more accurately predict the system
behaviour at high signal-to-noise ratio (SNR).
† From the theoretical analysis, we find that the average BER of an
AF MWRN is a linearly increasing function and the achievable
common rate is a linearly decreasing function of the estimation
error. We also find that the average BER decreases and the
achievable common rate increases with increasing correlation
between the true and the estimated channels. Moreover, AF
MWRN can retain its error performance with increasing number of
users. This behaviour is a result of the fact that the larger number
of error events are less probable for AF.
† We show that when the decoding user has better channel
conditions than the other users, AF MWRN performs better,
because the decoding operation in AF MWRN takes place only in
the decoding user, which is influenced by the channel conditions
of the decoding user.
† We find that when most of the users experience poor channel
conditions, the achievable common rate and error performance of
an AF MWRN degrade even when there is no channel estimation
error.
The rest of this paper is organised in the following manner. The
system model of an MWRN with channel estimation is presented
in Section 2. The SNR analysis is provided in Section 3. The
achievable common rate and average BER for a user is derived in
Sections 4 and 5, respectively. The simulation results for
verification of the analytical solutions are provided in Section 6.
Finally, conclusions are provided in Section 7.
Throughout this paper, we have used the following notations: ⊕
denotes XOR operation, (·)
denotes the estimate of a variable, (·)
 error [19, 29–31]. We denote the power of the pilot signal at the users

and at the relay as Psp and Prp , respectively. Similarly, we denote the


denotes the error from the estimation, (·) denotes that the variable
is estimated for the second time, | · | denotes the absolute value of
Fig. 1 System model for an L-user MWRN, where the users exchange
information with each other via the relay R
IET Commun., 2016, Vol. 10, Iss. 3, pp. 272–282
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2016
a complex variable, arg (·) denotes the argument, min (·) denotes
the minimum value, (·)pe and (·)eq in the superscript means perfect
estimation and equal channel gain, respectively and Q(·) is the
Gaussian Q-function.
2 System model
We consider an L-user MWRN, where there is no direct link between
the users and they exchange their information through a single relay,
as illustrated in Fig. 1.
The users exchange their information in two phases: multiple
access and broadcast phases, where each phase is composed of a
pilot transmission and a data transmission phase. In the multiple
access phase, at first, the users in a pair transmit their pilot
symbols individually in different time slots and the relay estimates
the corresponding channels. Then the users in the pair
simultaneously transmit their data. That is, in an L-user MWRN, at
the ℓth time slot, where ℓ ∈ [1, L − 1], the user pair formed by the
ℓth and the (ℓ + 1)th user simultaneously transmit their data. Thus,
in this pairwise transmission scheme, the first and the last users
transmit only once while the remaining L − 2 users transmit twice.
In the broadcast phase, the relay broadcasts its own pilot, as well
as, the estimated channel coefficients in the multiple access phase.
Then it broadcasts the amplified network-coded message to all the
users. When all the users have the network-coded messages
corresponding to each user pair, they utilise self-information to
extract the messages of the other users. The pilot transmission is
required for minimum mean square error (MMSE)-based channel
estimation and the data transmission is based on lattice codes.
The channel from the i th user to the relay is denoted by hi,r and the
channel from the relay to the i th user by hr,i. We make the following
assumptions regarding the channels:
† The channels between users and the relay are reciprocal.
† The fading channel coefficients are zero-mean complex-valued
Gaussian random variables with variances s2hi, r = s2hr, i .
† The channel coefficients are not known a priori at any of the users
or the relay but the statistical parameters of the corresponding
channels, for example, channel variances are known beforehand
[10, 19, 27, 28].
† The channel is constant during one message packet transmission,
and so only one pilot bit per message packet is required.
Thus, we can model the channel hi,r as
hi,r = ĥi,r + h̃i,r , (1)
where ĥi, r is the estimated channel and h̃i,r represents the estimation
power of the data signal at the users and the relay by Psd and Prd ,
respectively. In the following two sections, we discuss the
transmission sequences in the multiple access and the broadcast
phases for a certain time slot.
2.1 Multiple access phase
2.1.1 Pilot transmission: Each of the users transmit a pilot
symbol and the relay estimates the corresponding channels through
MMSE estimation. Such pilot symbol-based MMSE is a
frequently used estimator for cellular channels [19, 29, 32]. If
the i th user transmits pilot symbol Xp, then the relay receives the
signal

Yp = hi, r Psp Xp + nr . (2)
We assume that Xp = 1 and nr is a zero-mean complex valued AWGN
at the relay with variance s2nr = (N0 /2) per dimension, where N0 is
273
 
the noise power. The relay then obtains the estimate [33] Psd ĥi+1, r , respectively. The resulting signal is given by
p 2
  
Ps shi, r Xr = ari, i+1 − Psd ĥi, r di − Psd ĥi+1, r di+1 mod L
ĥi, r = Yp , (3)
Psp s2hi, r + s2nr
 
= Psd ĥi, r Xi + Psd ĥi+1, r Xi+1 + (a − 1)
and the estimation error variance at the relay is [33] 
× Psd (ĥi, r Xi + ĥi+1, r Xi+1 ) + anr
s2hi, r s2nr 
s2h̃ = p 2 . (4) + a Psd (h̃i, r Xi + h̃i+1, r Xi+1 )
i, r Ps sh + s2nr 
i, r  
− Psd ĥi, r di − Psd ĥi+1, r di+1 mod L
Note that the estimation error is independent of the channel estimate
 

ĥi, r because ĥi, r is the MMSE estimate of hi, r [20].
The correlation coefficient between the true channel and the = Psd ĥi, r c(Wi ) + Psd ĥi+1, r c(Wi+1 ) + n mod L, (8)
estimated channel is given by
 where

 Psp s2h
ri, r =  p 2 i, r 2 (5)  
Ps shi, r + snr n = (a − 1) Psd (ĥi, r Xi + Psd ĥi+1, r Xi+1 ) + anr

Note that as the noise variance becomes very small or the channel + a Psd (h̃i, r Xi + h̃i+1, r Xi+1 )
variance s2hi, r becomes high, the correlation coefficient approaches
one. On the other hand, when the channel conditions are very and α is chosen to minimise the noise variance [26, 34] and
poor, the correlation coefficient decreases with increasing noise computed using the estimated channel coefficients [37]. The
variance. Using the expression in (5), the variance of the channel computed value of α is forwarded to the users along with the
estimate ĥi, r can be represented as r2i, r s2hi, r . signal from the relay.
The relay then adds a dither dr with the network-coded message
which is generated at the relay and broadcast to the users prior to
2.1.2 Data transmission: Here, we discuss the general lattice
message transmission in the broadcast phase [25]. Then it
code-based data transmissions in an AF MWRN with pairwise
broadcasts the resulting message using lattice codes, which is
transmission. Details on lattice codes are available in [14, 16, 25,
given as Zi, i+1 = (Xr + dr ) mod L.
26, 34–36].
Each of the m th users receives the signal
At the end of pilot transmission, the i th and the (i + 1)th user
transmit messages, Wi and Wi+1, generated independently and 
uniformly over a finite field, using lattice codes Xi ∈ Λ and Xi+1 ∈ Λ, Yi, i+1 = Prd hr, m Zi, i+1 + nm , (9)
respectively, which can be given as [2, 14]

where nm is the zero-mean complex AWGN at the m th user with

Xi = (c(Wi ) + di ) mod L, (6a)
noise variance s2nm, i = s2nr per dimension.
At the end of the broadcast phase, the m th user scales the received
Xi+1 = (c(Wi+1 ) + di+1 ) mod L, (6b)

signal with ascalar coefficient βm and removes the dithers dr
multiplied by Prd ĥr, m . The resulting signal is
where c(·) denotes the mapping function which maps a message
from finite-dimensional field to lattice points and Λ denotes the 
lattice which is a discrete subgroup of the D-dimensional complex [bm Yi, i+1 − Prd ĥr, m dr ] mod L
field.
 
The relay receives the signal = Prd ĥr, m Xr + (bm − 1) Prd ĥr, m Xr
   
ri, i+1 = hi, r Psd Xi + hi+1, r Psd Xi+1 + nr , (7) +bm nm + bm Prd h̃r, m Xr mod L

  
where nr is the zero-mean complex AWGN at the relay with noise
variance s2nr = (N0 /2) per dimension. = Prd Psd ĥr, m (ĥi, r c(Wi ) + ĥi+1, r c(Wi+1 )) + n′ mod L,

(10)
2.2 Broadcast phase
where
2.2.1 Pilot transmission: Prior to data transmission in the
broadcast phase, the relay broadcasts its own pilot and the  
estimated channel coefficients from the multiple access phase. n′ = Prd ĥr, m n + (bm − 1) Prd ĥr, m Xr
Then the m th (m ∈ [1, L]) user performs MMSE estimation similar 
to (3), to obtain the estimate ĥr, m . The channel estimation error in
+ bm nm + bm Prd h̃r, m Xr
this case is h̃r, m = hr, m − ĥr, m , with variance s2h̃ = s2h̃ . Similar
r, m m, r
to (5), the correlation between hr, m and ĥr, m is represented as
ρr,m = ρm,r. and βm is chosen to minimise the noise variance [25].
The users then utilise a lattice quantiser [25] and detect the
received signal to obtain the estimate X̂i, i+1 = (c(Wi ) +
2.2.2 Data transmission: At the end of pilot transmission, the c(Wi+1 )) mod L, where it is assumed that the lattice dimension is
 factor α
relay amplifies the received signal with an amplification large enough such that Pr (n′ Ó V)  0 and V denotes the voronoi
[16] and removes the dithers di, di+1 scaled by Psd ĥi, r and region of the lattice Λ. After performing all the decoding

IET Commun., 2016, Vol. 10, Iss. 3, pp. 272–282

274 & The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2016
operations, each user cancels self-information to extract messages of The optimum value of βm can be obtained by differentiating N′ with
every other user. respect to βm and then setting it to zero [i.e. (dN′ /dβm) = 0] and can be
At first, the i th user subtracts its own lattice point, i.e. c(Wi) from given as
the network-coded message received in the (i + 1)th time slot (i.e.
X̂i, i+1 ) and extracts the message of the (i + 1)th user as c(Ŵi+1 ). Prd r2r, m s2hr, m
After that, it utilises the extracted message of the (i + 1)th user to bm = (14)
obtain the messages of the (i + 2)th user to the L th user in the Prd s2hr, m + N0
downward extraction process, which can be shown as
Substituting α from (13) and βm from (14) into (12), the SNR of the
c(Ŵ i+1 ) = (X̂ i, i+1 − c(Wi )) mod L, ith user’s signal received at the m th user can be obtained as

c(Ŵ i+2 ) = (X̂ i+1, i+2 − c(Ŵ i+1 )) mod L,

Prd r2r, m s2hr, m r2i, r s2hi, r
.. (11) gi, m =
. r2i, r s2hi, r + r2i+1, r s2hi+1, r

c(Ŵ L ) = (X̂ L−1, L − c(Ŵ L−1 )) mod L. Prd Psd r2r, m s2hr, m r2i, r s2hi, r
+
Psd (s2h̃ + s2h̃ ) + N0
i, r i+1, r
Then the upward message extraction is performed to recover the
messages of the (i − 1)th user to the first user. It can be clearly Prd Psd r2r, m s2hr, m r2i, r s2hi, r
+ (15)
identified from (24) that if Ŵi+1 = Wi+1 , then Wi+2 will be Prd s2h̃ + N0
r, m
incorrectly decoded. Thus, an incorrect decision about any user
can lead to incorrect decision about the preceding or the following
users which may cause error propagation in the sequential
3.1 Special case: perfect channel estimation
decoding process.
When the channel estimation is perfect, the SNR can be obtained by
Remark 1: It is clear from (8) and (10) that the error performance of replacing the channel estimates with the actual channel coefficients,
an AF MWRN with imperfect CSI depends on the channel i.e. setting the estimation error variances to zero and correlation
estimation error. The expressions of the channel estimates [see (3)] coefficients to one. Thus, if we set ρa, b = 1 and s2h̃ = 0 in (15),
and estimation error [see (4)] show that these are functions of the where a, b ∈ {r, i, i ± 1}, the modified SNR gpe
a, b
i, m is given by
noise variance and the channel variance. The channel variance and
the noise variance depend on the distance and the SNR,
respectively. Thus, we can expect the distance of users and the Prd s2hr, m s2hi, r Prd Psd s2hr, m s2hi, r Prd Psd s2hr, m s2hi, r
gpe
i, m = + + . (16)
SNR to play a key role in determining the error performance of s2hi, r + s2hi+1, r N0 N0
AF MWRNs. In a practical wireless system, tuning the channel
gain of the users through physical parameters can be quite useful
for the best relay selection in the presence of multiple relays [20,
38] or optimal user ordering [39] for a pairwise transmission scheme. 4 Common rate analysis

In this section, we discuss the achievable common rate analysis

3 SNR analysis
An L-user MWRN can be considered as a combination of L − 1
TWRNs. Therefore, to investigate the performance of the overall
network, we need to consider the SNR of each user pair in the
component TWRNs, individually.
The end-to-end SNR of the i th user’s signal, received at the mth
user with imperfect channel estimation can be obtained from (10) as
based on the SNR results in the previous section. Common rate
denotes the maximum possible information rate of the system that
can be exchanged with negligible error. It can be a useful metric
for the systems where all the users have the same amount of
information to exchange or when the users are allocated with the
same uplink bandwidth [14]. For an MWRN with symmetric
traffic, the common rate R = Ri for i ∈ [1, L] is achievable, if and
only if the rate tuple (R, R, …, R) is achievable.
Now, the maximum achievable common rate of an AF MWRN
can be given as [13]

Prd Psd r2r, m s2hr, m r2i, r s2hi, r 1

gi, m = , (12) Rc = min R (17)
N′ L − 1 i, m i, m

where the numerator represents the power of the signal terms in (10) where the factor (L − 1) comes from the fact that there are (L − 1)
and the denominator time slots in each of the multiple access phase (MAC) and the
broadcast phase (BC) phases and Ri,m denotes the achievable

information rate with which the i th user’s message is received at
N ′ = Prd r2r, m s2hr, m |a − 1|2 Psd (r2i, r s2hi, r + r2i+1, r s2hi+1, r )
the m th user, as upper bounded in the following theorem.

+ |a|2 N0 + |a|2 Psd (s2h̃ + s2h̃ ) Theorem 1: The maximum possible information rate from the i th user
i, r i+1, r
to the m th user can be upper bounded by
+ |bm |2 N0 + Prd |bm − 1|2 r2r, m s2hr, m + |bm |2 Prd s2h̃
r, m
⎛
d 2 2 2 2
′ 1 ⎝ Pr rr, m shr, m ri, r shi, r Prd Psd r2r, m s2hr, m r2i, r s2hi, r
denotes the variance of the noise terms n in (10). R = log 2 2 +
The optimum value of α can be obtained by differentiating N′ with 2 ri, r shi, r + r2i+1, r s2hi+1, r Psd (s2h̃ + s2h̃ ) + N0
respect to α and then setting it to zero (i.e. (dN′ /dα) = 0) and can be
i, r i+1, r
⎞
d d 2 2 2 2
given as Pr Ps rr, m shr, m ri, r shi, r
+ ⎠ (18)
Prd s2h̃ + N0
Prd r2i, r s2hi, r + Prd r2i+1, r s2hi+1, r
r, m

a= (13)
Prd s2hi, r + Prd s2hi+1, r + N0
Proof: see Appendix 1. □

IET Commun., 2016, Vol. 10, Iss. 3, pp. 272–282

& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2016 275
5 Error performance analysis message extraction process for extracting the messages of the (i − 1)th
user to the first user can be shown as
In this section, we characterise the error performance of AF MWRNs
through average BER analysis for BPSK modulation, which is the 
simplest lattice code. It must be noted that in [17], the average X̂ i−1 = Yi, i−1 − aĥr, i Psd Prd ĥi, r Xi ,
BER analysis has been performed for AWGN and fading channels 
with perfect estimation and equal channel variances. In the X̂ i−2 = Yi−1, i−2 − aĥr, i Psd Prd ĥi−1, r X̂ i−1 , . . . , (25)
following part, we incorporate channel estimation error and 
unequal channel variances in the average BER analysis. X̂ 1 = Y1, 2 − aĥr, i Psd Prd ĥ2, r X̂ 2 .

5.1 Data transmission with BPSK modulation Finally, the users perform maximum-likelihood detection on the
th
signals in (24) and (25) to extract other users’ messages.
In the BPSK modulated AF MWRN, at the ith time slot, the i and To obtain the error performance of AF MWRN with channel
the (i + 1)th users transmit their messages Wi and Wi+1 which are estimation error, we need to follow the general steps in [17] which
BPSK modulated to Xi and Xi+1, respectively, where Xi, Xi+1 ∈ are outlined below:
[−1, 1]. The relay receives the signal as
  † Obtain the probability of incorrectly decoding a network-coded
ri, i+1 = hi, r Psd Xi + hi+1, r Psd Xi+1 + nr , (19) message.
† Investigate different error cases for the k th error event, where the
k th error event can be denoted as the occurrence when exactly k
and amplifies and broadcasts the network-coded signal, which is number of users’ messages are incorrectly decoded.
given as † Obtain the probability of the above error cases.
   † Add the probabilities of different error cases to obtain the

probability of the k th error event Pi (k) and express it in terms of
Zi, i+1 = a hi, r Psd Xi + hi+1, r Psd Xi+1 + nr , (20)
the probability of incorrectly decoding a network-coded message
(from step 1).
The i th user receives † Since, there are L − 1 possible error events in an L-user MWRN,
find the expected probability of all these error events to obtain the
 average BER.
Yi, i+1 = Prd hr, i Zi, i+1 + nm , (21)
Now, we obtain the probability of incorrectly decoding a user’s

and subtracts its own signal Xi multiplied by aĥr, i Psd Prd ĥi, r to message given that the previous user’s message is correct and the
th
detect the (i + 1) user’s signal as probability of incorrectly decoding a user’s message given that the
previous user’s message is also incorrect. These error probabilities
 can be derived from the SNR expressions obtained in Section 3.
X̂i+1 = Yi, i+1 − aĥr, i Psd Prd ĥi, r Xi
 Lemma 1: The probability that the ith user incorrectly decodes the
= aĥr, i ĥi+1, r Psd Prd Xi+1 + ni+1 (22) p th( p ≠ i) user’s message, given that the ( p ± 1)th user’s message is
correctly decoded, can be obtained as
where ni+1 denotes the noise terms, given as  
  PAF (i, p) = Q 2gi, p , (26)
ni+1 = 2a Psd Prd ĥr, i h̃i, r Xi + Psd Prd ah̃r, i h̃i, r Xi
 where gi, p is the SNR of the p th user’s signal received at the i th user
+ a Psd Prd ĥr, i h̃i+1, r Xi+1 and can be given as
 
+ a Psd Prd h̃r, i ĥi+1, r Xi+1 + a Psd Prd h̃r, i h̃i+1, r Xi+1 Psd Prd r2r, i s2hr, i r2p, r s2h p, r
  gi, p = . (27)
+ a Prd ĥr, i n1 + a Prd h̃r, i n1 + n2 . (23) Np

Then the user detects the signal of the (i + 2)th user to the L th user in
the downward [In the downward message extraction process, the
user extracts other users’ messages who transmitted after it.]
message extraction. The process can be shown as

X̂ i+2 = Yi+1, i+2 − aĥr, i Psd Prd ĥi+1, r X̂ i+1 , . . . ,

X̂ L = YL−1, L − aĥr, i Psd Prd ĥL−1, r X̂ L−1 .
where Np denotes the variance of the noise terms in the p th user’s
signal, received at the i th user and can be given by
Proof: see Appendix 2. □
Lemma 2: The probability that the i th user incorrectly decodes the
p th( p ≠ i, i ± 1) user’s message, given that the ( p ± 1)th user’s
(24) message is incorrectly decoded, can be obtained as
 

Similarly, the upward [In the upward message extraction process, the PAF (i, p) = Q 2gei, p , (28)
user extracts other users’ messages who transmitted before it.]

⎧
⎪
⎪ 2Psd Prd r2r, i s2hr, i s2h̃ + Psd Prd r2r, i s2hr, i s2h̃ + Psd Prd r2i+1, r s2hi+1, r s2h̃ + (Psd + Prd )
⎪
⎪ p=i+1
⎪
i, r i+1, r r, i
⎪
⎨ ×r2r, i s2h N0 + Psd r2i+1, r s2h N
i+1, r 0
Np =
r, i

⎪
⎪ Psd Prd r2r, i s2hr, i s2h̃ + Psd Prd r2p+1, r s2h p+1, r s2h̃ + Psd Prd r2r, i s2hr, i s2h̃
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
p+1, r r, i p, r
p = i, i + 1
⎩ + Psd Prd r2p, r s2h s2 + Prd r2r, i s2h N0 + Psd r2p+1, r s2h N + P d 2 2
s r p, r sh p, r N0
p, r h̃
r, i r, i p+1, r 0

IET Commun., 2016, Vol. 10, Iss. 3, pp. 272–282

276 & The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2016
where gei, p represents the SNR of the p th user’s signal at the i th user
when X̂ p+1 = X p+1 and can be given by

Psd Prd r2r, i s2hr, i r2p, r s2h p, r

gei, p = , (29)
4Psd Prd r2r, i s2hr, i s2h p+1, r + Np

Proof: see Appendix 3. □

Utilising (26) and (28), the average BER of AF MWRN can be

derived using the steps outlined below (25). The main results can
be presented in the following theorem.

Theorem 2: At high SNR, the average BER for an AF MWRN can be

given as (see (30)).

Proof: see Appendix 4. □ Fig. 2 Achievable common rate for different channel conditions in L = 6
and 10 user AF MWRNs

5.2 Special case: equal average channel gains

optimal to achieve the highest information rate [19, 40]. However,
When the users have equal average channel gains, PAF(i, p) in (26) assuming equal power for data and pilot symbols enables a
′
and PAF (i, p) in (28) are the same for all p’s. In that case, PAF(i, p) simpler interpretation of the problem. Following [13], the average
′ ′
can be replaced with PAF and PAF (i, p) with PAF . Thus the average
channel gain for the j th user is modelled by s2h j, r = (1/(dj /d0 ))n ,
BER can be approximated as
where d0 is the reference distance, dj is the distance between the
L−1 ′k−1
j th user and the relay which is assumed to be uniformly randomly
PAF k(L − k)PAF distributed between 0 and d0 and n is the path loss exponent,
Pi,eqavg, AF = k=1
. (31)
L−1 which is assumed to be 3. Such a distance-based channel model
takes into account large-scale path loss and has been widely
Using the expression for the sum of a geometric series, the above considered in the literature [4, 10, 19, 27, 28, 33]. Note that, in
equation can be further simplified to this model, the estimation error variance [see (4)] is a function of
distances. The SNR is assumed to be SNR per message per user.
′
1 + PAF ′L
− PAF ′L+1
− PAF ′
− L + PAF ′L
L − LPAF ′L+1
+ LPAF We denote the decoding user as the i th user, where i is assumed to
Pi,eqavg, AF = , be 1 and other users as the m th user, where m ∈ [1, L], m ≠ i. The
L−1
simulation results are averaged over 1000 Monte Carlo trials per
(32) SNR point.

6 Results 6.1 Achievable common rate

In this section, we provide insights from the achievable rate and error
performance analysis. We also verify the error performance results
with Monte Carlo simulations. We consider two cases L = 6 and
10 users where each user transmits a message packet of T = 1000
bits. For each of the message packets, one pilot bit is transmitted.
We assume equal and unity power for the data signal and the pilot
signal at the users and the relay. Note that when the data and the
pilot powers are optimised, one pilot symbol transmission is
Fig. 2 shows the achievable common rate with lattice codes for L = 6
and 10 user AF MWRNs for the cases (i) di < dm, (ii) di = dm and (iii)
di > dm in the presence of imperfect channel estimation. The above
cases represent that the i th user has (i) better, (ii) same and (iii)
poorer channel conditions, respectively, compared with the m th
users. As defined in (4), the estimation error varies linearly with
SNR. From Fig. 2, it is clear that for larger number of users the
common rate will be lower, which can be identified from (17). It

⎧ 
⎪
⎪ 
L−1  k−1
L−k+1 
⎪
⎪ k P′ AF (i, p + t)PAF (i, p)
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ k=1 p=2 t=1
i = 1, 2, 3
⎪
⎪ 
⎪
⎪ 
k−2
⎪
⎪ + ′ ′
P AF (i, L)P AF (i, L − t)PAF (i, L − k + 1)
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ 
t=1
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ 
L−1  k−1
L−1  ′
⎪
⎪ P AF (i, p − t)PAF (i, p)
⎪
⎪
k
⎪
⎪ k=1 p=k t=1
⎪
⎪  i = L, L − 1, L − 2
⎪
⎪ 
⎪
⎪
k−2
′ ′
⎨ + P AF (i, 1)P AF (i, 1 + t)PAF (i, k)
1
Pi, avg, AF = 
t=1 (30)
L − 1⎪
⎪  L−k+1  k−1  ′
⎪
⎪
L−1
⎪
⎪ k P AF (i, p + t)PAF (i, p)
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
k=1 p=i+1 t=1
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ 
k−2
⎪
⎪
⎪ + P′ AF (i, 1)P′ AF (i, 1 + t)PAF (i, k)
⎪
⎪ i Ó {1, 2, 3, L − 2, L − 1, L}.
⎪
⎪
t=1
⎪
⎪  k−1
i−1  ′
⎪
⎪ + P AF (i, p − t)PAF (i, p)
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪ p=k t=1
⎪
⎪ 
⎪
⎪ 
k−2
⎪
⎩ + P′ AF (i, L)P′ AF (i, L − t)PAF (i, L − k + 1)
t=1

IET Commun., 2016, Vol. 10, Iss. 3, pp. 272–282

& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2016 277
Fig. 3 Achievable common rate for different levels of channel estimation error and correlation among true and estimated channels in L = 6 and 10 user AF
MWRNs
a Impact of channel estimation error
b Impact of the correlation coefficient
can be noted that when the decoding user has better channel
conditions, the achievable common rate is higher than that when
the decoding user has poorer channel conditions. This is because,
the SNR received at the decoding user increases when the
decoding user has a good channel gain [see (15)], and as a result
the achievable rate improves [see (18)].
Figs. 3a and 3b show the impact of different levels of channel
estimation errors and the correlation coefficient, respectively, on
the achievable common rate for L = 6 and 10 user MWRNs. To
plot the results in Fig. 3a, the estimation errors are set using the
following technique, which is illustrated for two estimation errors
of 0.1 and 0.01% of the combined variance of the fading channel
and the complex AWGN noise. These values of channel
estimation errors have been introduced by setting s2nr equal to
0.001 and 0.0001, respectively, in (4) and noting that
s2hi, r ≃ s2hi, r + s2nr at high SNR and n = 3. To plot the results in
Fig. 3b, we consider the worst channel conditions for every user
(i.e. di = d0) since the impact of the correlation is more visible
when users have smaller channel gains [see (5)]. Using (5), we set
the noise variance s2nr = (s2hi, r /r2i, r ) − s2hi, r and substitute it in
(18) to calculate the achievable common rate for different
values of correlation coefficients. Fig. 3a shows that the
achievable rate decreases with increasing estimation error. For
different channel condition cases and a certain number of users,
the achievable common rate decreases with the same proportion.
On the other hand, Fig. 3b shows that the achievable common rate
increases with the correlation coefficient at the same rate for
different number of users.
Fig. 4 Achievable common rate when 10 and 90% users’ distances below
0.1d0 in L = 10 user AF MWRN
278
Fig. 4 shows the achievable common rate for L = 10 user AF
MWRN for the cases when (i) 10% of the users have distances
below 0.1d0 (corresponds to the case when most of the users have
poor channel conditions) and (ii) 90% of the users have distances
below 0.1d0 (corresponds to the case when most of the users have
good channel conditions). It can be observed that when most of
the users experience good channel conditions, the achievable
common rate improves. Moreover, it can be noted that the
degradation in the overall channel conditions leads to performance
loss in AF MWRN by nearly the same degree for the cases when
perfect CSI is available or not.
6.2 Average BER
Fig. 5 shows the average BER for AF MWRN with L = 6 and 10
users for the cases (i) di < dm, (ii) di = dm and (iii) di > dm in the
presence of imperfect channel estimation. Here, the analytical
results are plotted using (30) and compared with the simulation
results. It can be seen from this figure that the analytical results
match with the simulations at medium to high SNR. It can be seen
from this figure that the average BER remains almost the same
with the increasing number of users. This is because larger
number of error events in AF MWRN are less probable, as
explained in Appendix 4. For this reason, the average BER does
not increase with increasing number of users which is expected
from (30). Moreover, it can be seen that when the decoding user
has better channel conditions compared with other users, the error
Fig. 5 Average BER for different channel conditions in L = 6 and 10 user
AF MWRNs
IET Commun., 2016, Vol. 10, Iss. 3, pp. 272–282
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2016
Fig. 6 Average BER for different levels of channel estimation error and correlation among true and estimated channels in L = 6 and 10 user AF MWRNs
a Impact of channel estimation error
b Impact of the correlation coefficient
performance improves. This is because, in this case, the decoding
user can decode the other users’ messages correctly with higher
probability.
Figs. 6a and b plot average BER for L = 6 and 10 users AF
MWRN for different levels of the estimation error and correlation
coefficients, respectively. It can be noted from Fig. 6a that the
average BER linearly increases with the estimation error.
Moreover, for the same level of increase in estimation error,
the average BER of an AF MWRN increases by the same amount
for both L = 6 and 10. The reason is that the larger number of
error events are less probable than the smaller number of error
events in AF MWRN [see (48) and (46) in Appendix 4]. Fig. 6b
shows that the average BER decreases with increasing correlation
between the true and the estimated channels by the same amount
for L = 6 and 10.
Fig. 7 shows average BER for L = 10 users AF MWRN for the
cases when (i) 10% of the users have distances below 0.1d0
(corresponds to the case when most of the users have poor channel
conditions) and (ii) 90% of the users have distances below 0.1d0
(corresponds to the case when most of the users have good
channel conditions). It can be observed from this figure that for
both imperfect and perfect estimations, when most of the users
experience good channel conditions, the average BER of AF
MWRN decreases compared with the case when most of the
users experience poor channel conditions. Thus, it can be
identified that improving the channel estimation technique (i.e.
reducing channel estimation error) cannot alone improve the
system performance, as error propagation plays an influential role
when most of the users suffer poor channel conditions.
Fig. 7 Average BER when 10 and 90% users’ distances are below 0.1d0 in
L = 10 user AF MWRN
IET Commun., 2016, Vol. 10, Iss. 3, pp. 272–282
& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2016
7 Conclusions
In this paper, we have presented a method for analysing the impact of
channel estimation error on the achievable common rate and the
average BER for AF MWRNs. The derived expression can
accurately predict the system behaviour at high SNR. We have
shown that the average BER increases linearly and the achievable
common rate decreases linearly with the estimation error from
MMSE channel estimation. Moreover, we find that the average
BER decreases and the achievable common rate increases with the
increasing correlation between the true and the estimated channels.
Moreover, we observe that AF MWRN is robust against the
increase in the number of users in terms of average BER. We have
shown that when the decoding user has better channel conditions
compared with the other users, AF relaying achieves better
performance both in terms of the common rate and the average
BER. We also observe that when most of the users experience
poor channel conditions, the achievable common rate and error
performance degrades by the same degree for perfect and
imperfect CSIs.
8 References
1 Gündüz, D., Yener, A., Goldsmith, A., et al.: ‘The multi-way relay channel’. Proc.
IEEE ISIT, 2009, pp. 339–343
2 Gündüz, D., Yener, A., Goldsmith, A., et al.: ‘The multi-way relay channel’, IEEE
Trans. Inf. Theory, 2013, 59, (1), pp. 51–63
3 Ong, L., Johnson, S.J., Kellett, C.M.: ‘An optimal coding strategy for the binary
multi-way relay channel’, IEEE Commun. Lett., 2010, 14, (4), pp. 330–332
4 Zhang, S., Liew, S.C., Lam, P.P.: ‘Hot topic: physical-layer network coding’. Proc.
ACM MOBICOM, 2006, pp. 358–365
5 Katti, S., Gollakota, S., Katabi, D.: ‘Embracing wireless interference: analog
network coding’. Proc. ACM SIGCOMM, 2007, pp. 397–408
6 Rankov, B., Wittneben, A.: ‘Spectral efficient signaling for half-duplex relay
channels’. Proc. Asilomar Conf. on Signals, Systems and Computers, 2005,
pp. 1066–1071
7 Seyfi, M., Muhaidat, S., Liang, J., et al.: ‘Noncoherent relay selection for
bidirectional cooperative networks’. Proc. IEEE GLOBECOM, 2012, pp. 105–110
8 Fredj, K.B., Ikki, S.S., Aissa, S.: ‘Performance analysis of two-way opportunistic
decode-and-forward based systems in Nakagami-m fading environments’, IET
Commun., 2014, 8, (9), pp. 1626–1636
9 Chen, M., Yener, A.: ‘Multiuser two-way relaying: detection and interference
management strategies’, IEEE Trans. Wirel. Commun., 2009, 8, (8), pp. 4296–4305
10 Chen, M., Yener, A.: ‘Power allocation for F/TDMA multiuser two-way relay
networks’, IEEE Trans. Wirel. Commun., 2010, 9, (2), pp. 546–551
11 Xu, W., Dong, X., Lu, W.S.: ‘Joint precoding optimization for multiuser
multi-antenna relaying downlinks using quadratic programming’, IEEE Trans.
Commun., 2011, 59, (5), pp. 1228–1235
12 Amarasuriya, G., Tellambura, C., Ardakani, M.: ‘Performance analysis of pairwise
amplify-and-forward multi-way relay networks’, IEEE Wirel. Commun. Lett.,
2012, 1, (5), pp. 524–527
13 Amarasuriya, G., Tellambura, C., Ardakani, M.: ‘Multi-way MIMO
amplify-and-forward relay networks with zero-forcing transmission’, IEEE
Trans. Commun., 2013, 61, (12), pp. 4847–4863
279
 Ong, L., Kellett, C.M., Johnson, S.J.: ‘On the equal-rate capacity of the AWGN a very small probability of error, the
14
  volume of the voronoi region
multiway relay channel’, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, 2012, 58, (9), pp. 5761–5769 must satisfy: m = (Vol(V))2/D /N ′ . The rate of a nested lattice
15 Wang, G., Xiang, W., Yuan, J.: ‘Outage performance for compute-and-forward in
generalized multi-way relay channels’, IEEE Commun. Lett., 2012, 16, (12), code is given by: R = 1/D log (Vol(V coarse )/Vol(V)), where V coarse
pp. 2099–2102 denotes the voronoi region of the coarse lattice in which the fine
16 Nazer, B., Gastpar, M.: ‘Compute-and-forward: harnessing interference through lattice Λ is nested. The volume of the voronoi region of the coarse
structured codes’, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, 2011, 57, (10), pp. 6463–6486 lattice can be given by
17 Islam, S.N., Sadeghi, P., Durrani, S.: ‘Error performance analysis of
decode-and-forward and amplify-and-forward multiway relay networks with
binary phase shift keying modulation’, IET Commun., 2013, 7, (15),  d d 2 2 2 2 D/2
pp. 1605–1616 Ps Pr ri, r shi, r rr, m shr, m
18 Degenhardt, H., Rong, Y., Klein, A.: ‘Non-regenerative multi-way relaying: Vol(V coarse ) =
combining the gains of network coding and joint processing’, IEEE Trans. G
Wirel. Commun., 2013, 12, (11), pp. 5692–5703
19 Tabataba, F.S., Sadeghi, P., Hucher, C., et al.: ‘Impact of channel estimation errors
and power allocation on analog network coding and routing in two-way relaying’, where G denotes the second moment of the coarse lattice. Thus, the
IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., 2012, 61, (7), pp. 3223–3239 achievable rates satisfy
20 Wang, C., Liu, T.C.K., Dong, X.: ‘Impact of channel estimation error on the
performance of amplify-and-forward two-way relaying’, IEEE Trans. Veh.
Technol., 2012, 61, (3), pp. 1197–1207  d d 2 2 2 2 
21 Taghiyar, M.J., Muhaidat, S., Liang, J., et al.: ‘Relay selection with imperfect CSI 1 Ps Pr ri, r shi, r rr, m shr, m
in bidirectional cooperative networks’, IEEE Commun. Lett., 2012, 16, (1), R≤ log
pp. 57–59
2 G2peN ′
22 Jiang, B., Gao, F., Gao, X., et al.: ‘Channel estimation and training design for
two-way relay networks with power allocation’, IEEE Trans. Wirel. Commun.,
2010, 9, (6), pp. 2022–2032 For δ > 0 and large enough dimension of the lattice, it can be shown
23 Abdallah, S., Psaromiligkos, I.N.: ‘Blind channel estimation for that G2πe < (1 + δ). Thus, the achievable rate can be given as
amplify-and-forward two-way relay networks employing M-PSK modulation’,
IEEE Trans. Signal Process., 2012, 60, (7), pp. 3604–3615
24 Islam, S.N., Durrani, S., Sadeghi, P.: ‘SER analysis of multi-way relay networks  d d 2 2 2 2 
with M-QAM modulation in the presence of imperfect channel estimation’, 1 Ps Pr ri, r shi, r rr, m shr, m
R ≤ log − log (1 + d) (33)
J. Commun. Netw., 2015, submitted 2 G2peN ′
25 Ma, Y., Huang, T., Li, J., et al.: ‘Novel nested convolutional lattice codes for
multi-way relaying systems over fading channels’. Proc. IEEE WCNC, 2013,
pp. 2671–2676
26 Erez, U., Zamir, R.: ‘Achieving 1/2 log (1 + SNR) on the AWGN channel with For δ small enough, the achievable rates can approach the upper
lattice encoding and decoding’, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, 2004, 50, (10), bound in (18).
pp. 2293–2314
27 Louie, R.H.Y., Li, Y., Vucetic, B.: ‘Practical physical layer network coding for
two-way relay channels: performance analysis and comparison’, IEEE Trans.
Wirel. Commun., 2010, 9, (2), pp. 764–777 9.2 Appendix 2: Proof of Lemma 1
28 Kramer, G., Gastpar, M., Gupta, P.: ‘Cooperative strategies and capacity theorems
for relay networks’, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, 2005, 51, (9), pp. 3037–3063 First, we obtain the SNR expression in (27) for the p th user’s signal at
29 Amin, O., Ikki, S.S., Uysal, M.: ‘On the performance analysis of multirelay
cooperative diversity systems with channel estimation errors’, IEEE Trans. Veh.
the i th user. For p = i ± 1, where i ± 1 indicates the user whose
Technol., 2011, 60, (5), pp. 2050–2059 message is decoded in the downward and in the upward extraction
30 Tarokh, V., Naguib, A., Seshadri, N., et al.: ‘Space-time codes for high data rate processes the received signal can be written from (24) and (25) as
wireless communication: performance criteria in the presence of channel
estimation errors, mobility, and multiple paths’, IEEE Trans. Commun., 1999,
47, (2), pp. 199–207 X̂ i+1 = Yi, i+1 − aPsd Prd ĥr, i ĥi, r Xi
31 Taricco, G., Biglieri, E.: ‘Space-time decoding with imperfect channel estimation’,
IEEE Trans. Wirel. Commun., 2005, 4, (4), pp. 1874–1888 = aĥr, i ĥi+1, r Psd Prd Xi+1 + ni+1 , (34)
32 Patel, C.S., Stuber, G.L.: ‘Channel estimation for amplify and forward relay based
cooperation diversity systems’, IEEE Trans. Wirel. Commun., 2007, 6, (6),
pp. 2348–2356 where ni±1 denotes the noise terms, given as
33 Tabataba, F.S., Sadeghi, P., Pakravan, M.R.: ‘Outage probability and power
allocation of amplify and forward relaying with channel estimation errors’, IEEE
Trans. Wirel. Commun., 2011, 10, (1), pp. 124–134  
34 Nam, W., Chung, S.Y., Lee, Y.H.: ‘Nested lattice codes for Gaussian relay ni+1 = 2a Psd Prd ĥr, i h̃i, r Xi + Psd Prd ah̃r, i h̃i, r Xi
networks with interference’, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, 2011, 57, (12), 
pp. 7733–7745
35 Song, Y., Devroye, N.: ‘Lattice codes for the Gaussian relay channel: + a Psd Prd ĥr, i h̃i+1, r Xi+1
decode-and-forward and compress-and-forward’, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, 2013,  
59, (8), pp. 4927–4948 + a Psd Prd h̃r, i ĥi+1, r Xi+1 + a Psd Prd h̃r, i h̃i+1, r Xi+1
36 Islam, S.N., Durrani, S., Sadeghi, P.: ‘A novel user pairing scheme for functional  
decode-and-forward multi-way relay network’, Phys. Commun., 2015, 17,
pp. 128–148. Available at http://www.arxiv.org/abs/1402.6422v3 + a Prd ĥr, i n1 + a Prd h̃r, i n1 + n2 . (35)
37 Pappi, K.N., Karagiannidis, G.K., Schober, R.: ‘How sensitive is
compute-and-forward to channel estimation errors?’. Proc. IEEE ISIT, 2013,
pp. 3110–3114
38 Ding, Z., Leung, K.K.: ‘Impact of imperfect channel state information on
bi-directional communications with relay selection’, IEEE Trans. Signal
Remark 2: Note that the first two noise terms in (35) indicate
Process., 2011, 59, (11), pp. 5657–5662 self-interference that cannot be completely cancelled out due to
39 Rasheed, T., Ahmed, M.H., Dobre, O.A., et al.: ‘User pairing in cooperative imperfect channel estimation. The fourth, fifth and sixth terms are
wireless network coding with network performance optimization’, EURASIP components of the desired signal that are lost due to channel
J. Wirel. Commun. Netw., 2013, 2013, (173), pp. 1–10
40 Hassibi, B., Hochwald, B.M.: ‘How much training is needed in multiple-antenna
estimation error. The last three terms indicate complex AWGN
wireless links?’, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, 2003, 49, (4), pp. 951–963 noises.

From (34), the SNR of the (i ± 1)th user’s signal, when received at the
i th user, is given by
9 Appendices
9.1 Appendix 1: Proof of Theorem 1 a2 Psd Prd r2r, i s2hr, i r2i+1, r s2hi+1, r
gi, i+1 = . (36)
Ni+1
The proof can be obtained following the steps in [16]. Since, the
lattice dimension D is large enough to ensure Pr (n′ Ó V)  0, the
volume-to-noise ratio of the lattice, μ > 2πe is satisfied. To ensure Here, Ni±1 represents the variance of the noise terms present in ni±1

IET Commun., 2016, Vol. 10, Iss. 3, pp. 272–282

280 & The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2016
[see (35)] and is expressed as signal can be obtained from (42) as

Ni+1 = 2a2 Psd Prd r2r, i s2hr, i s2h̃ + a2 Psd Prd s2h̃ s2h̃ Psd Prd r2r, i s2hr, i r2p, r s2h p, r
i, r r, i i, r
gi, p = , (44)
+ a2 Psd Prd r2r, i s2hr, i s2h̃ Np
i+1, r

+ a2 Psd Prd r2i+1, r s2hi+1, r s2h̃ + a2 Psd Prd s2h̃ s2h̃ where
r, i r, i i+1, r

+ a2 Prd r2r, i s2hr, i N0 + a2 Prd s2h̃ N0 + N0 , (37)

r, i Np = Psd Prd r2r, i s2hr, i s2h̃ + Psd Prd r2p+1, r s2h p+1, r s2h̃
p+1, r r, i

where ρa, b represents the correlation between the channel estimate + Psd Prd r2r, i s2hr, i s2h̃
ĥa, b and the true channels ha, b and s2h̃ represents the variance of p, r
a, b
the estimation error h̃a, b , a, b ∈ {r, i, i ± 1}. + Psd Prd r2p, r s2h p, r s2h̃ + Prd r2r, i s2hr, i N0
After substituting the value of α from (13), the expression of the
r, i

SNR in (15) can be given as + Psd r2p+1, r s2h p+1, r N0 + Psd r2p, r s2h p, r N0 .

Psd Prd r2r, i s2hr, i r2i+1, r s2hi+1, r The exact probability density function (pdf) of the noise ni±1 in (35)
gi, i+1 = ′ , (38) and np in (43) is not Gaussian due to the presence of product terms of
Ni+1
two Gaussian variables [i.e. the first six terms in (35) and the first
seven terms in (43)]. However, the pdf of the noise can be
where numerically shown to match closely to that of a Gaussian
distribution at high transmit SNR [The results are not provided for
′
Ni+1 = 2Psd Prd r2r, i s2hr, i s2h̃ + Psd Prd r2r, i s2hr, i s2h̃ brevity.]. Thus, the probability of incorrectly decoding the p th
i, r i+1, r
user’s message, given that the ( p ± 1)th user’s message is correctly
+ Psd Prd r2i+1, r s2hi+1, r s2h̃ + (Psd + Prd )r2r, i s2hr, i N0 decoded, can be obtained from (26) under Gaussian noise
r, i
approximation.
+ Psd r2i+1, r s2hi+1, r N0 + N02 + Psd s2h̃ N0 + Psd s2h̃ N0
i, r i+1, r
9.3 Appendix 3: Proof of Lemma 2
+ Psd Prd s2h̃ s2h̃ + Psd Prd s2h̃ s2h̃ .
r, i i, r r, i i+1, r

(39) When X̂ p+1 = X p+1 , the noise terms in the p th user’s signal can be
written as
Since, the higher-order noise terms have a negligible contribution to  
the SNR, we can ignore the second, third and fourth-order noise nep = 2a Psd Prd ĥr, i ĥ p+1, r + a Psd Prd ĥr, i h̃ p+1, r X p+1
terms [i.e. the last five terms in (39)], and thus the expression of 
the SNR can be approximated as + a Psd Prd h̃r, i ĥ p+1, r X p+1
 
Psd Prd r2r, i s2hr, i r2i+1, r s2hi+1, r + a Psd Prd h̃r, i h̃ p+1, r X p+1 + a Psd Prd ĥr, i h̃ p, r Xp
gi, i+1 ≃ , (40)
N ′′ i+1 
+ a Psd Prd h̃r, i ĥ p, r Xp
where   
+ a Psd Prd h̃r, i h̃ p, r Xp + a Prd ĥr, i n1 + a Prd h̃r, i n1 + n2 .
′′
Ni+1 = 2Psd Prd r2r, i s2hr, i s2h̃ + Psd Prd r2r, i s2hr, i s2h̃ (45)
i, r i+1, r

+ Psd Prd r2i+1, r s2hi+1, r s2h̃

r, i
Thus, the SNR of the p th user’s signal can be obtained using similar
+ (Psd + Prd )r2r, i s2hr, i N0 + Psd r2i+1, r s2hi+1, r N0 . (41) process as in Appendix 2 and is given as in (29).

For p ≠ i, i ± 1, from (24) and (25), the signal of the p th user can be 9.4 Appendix 4: Proof of Theorem 2
written as
First, we need to investigate different error cases for the k th error
event in an AF MWRN. For k = 1, the possible error cases are
X̂ p = Y p+1, p − aPsd Prd ĥr, i ĥ p+1, r X̂ p+1
illustrated in [17] as:
= aPsd Prd ĥr, i ĥ p, r Xp + np , (42)
† when a middle user’s message is wrongly estimated with correct
where p ± 1 denotes the user whose signal is detected before (or decision about the following user.
after) the p th user in the downward (or upward) extraction process † when an error occurs in the estimated signal of one of the end
and np denotes the noise terms present at the extracted signal of users.
the p th user’s signal and is given as
For larger values of k, there will be many more error cases and
considering all the possible error cases would make the analysis
np = aPsd Prd ĥr, i ĥ p+1, r (X p+1 − X̂ p+1 )
complicated. For a tractable analysis, we consider only the
+ aPsd Prd ĥr, i h̃ p+1, r X p+1 + Psd Prd ah̃r, i ĥ p+1, r X p+1 dominating error cases that influence the k th error event at high
′2
SNR. That is, we consider the higher-order error terms (e.g. PAF
+ aPsd Prd h̃r, i h̃ p+1, r X p+1 + aPsd Prd ĥr, i h̃ p, r Xp 2
and PAF ) and the corresponding error cases negligible.
+ aPsd Prd h̃r, i ĥ p, r Xp + aPsd Prd h̃r, i h̃ p, r Xp At high SNR, the dominating cases for the k th error event are
either k consecutive errors in the middle users or k consecutive
+ aPrd ĥr, i n1 + aPrd h̃r, i n1 + n2 . (43) errors involving one end user and k − 1 following (or preceding)
users. For example, if k = 2, i = 5 and L = 10, the error cases would
If X̂ p+1 = X p+1 (i.e. no error propagation), the SNR of the p th user’s be either two consecutive errors in the middle users [i.e. the fifth

IET Commun., 2016, Vol. 10, Iss. 3, pp. 272–282

& The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2016 281
user incorrectly decodes any one of the message pairs (W2, W3), in (46a)–(46d), respectively, can be considered as 1. Thus, the exact
(W3, W4), (W6, W7), (W7, W8), (W8, W9)] or two consecutive expressions can be simplified to
errors involving the end user and the following (preceding) user
[i.e. either (W1, W2) or (W9, W10)]. The probability of the above
error cases can be expressed as in 
k−1
′
PC (p) = PAF (i, p + t)PAF (i, p), (47a)
t=1

k−1
′
PC (p) = PAF (i, p + t)PAF (i, p)
t=1

k−1
′

L−1
′
PC′ (p) = PAF (i, p − t)PAF (i, p), (47b)
(1 − PAF (i, p + k))(1 − PAF (i, m)), t=1
m=1, m=i, p, p+t, p+k

(46a)

k −2
′ ′

k −1 PD = PAF (i, 1)PAF (i, 1 + t)PAF (i, k), (47c)
′
PC ′ (p) = PAF (i, p − t)PAF (i, p) t=1
t=1

L−1
′
(1 − PAF (i, p − k))(1 − PAF (i, m)), 
k −2
′ ′
m=1, m=i, p, p−t, p−k
PD′ = PAF (i, L)PAF (i, L − t)PAF (i, L − k + 1). (47d)
t=1
(46b)

k−2
′ ′
Now, there are L − k − 1 number of user combinations, where
PD = PAF (i, 1)PAF (i, 1 + t)PAF (i, k) exactly k number of middle users’ messages are incorrectly
t=1 decoded, and one combination where k errors occur involving the

L−1 end user. Then, adding the expressions (47a) and (47d) or (47b)
(1 − PAF (i, m)), (46c) and (47c) for the possible user combinations would give the
m=1, m=i, t+1, k probability of exactly k error events. Thus, the probability of
exactly k error events can be asymptotically approximated as

k −2
′ ′
PD ′ = PAF (i, L)PAF (i, L − t)PAF (i, L − k + 1)
t=1
⎧
⎪
⎪ 
L−k+1

L−1 ⎪
⎪ PC (p) + PD′ , i = 1, 2, 3
⎪
⎪
(1 − PAF (i, m)). (46d) ⎪
⎪ p=2
⎪
⎪
m=1, m=i, L−t, L−k+1 ⎪
⎪ 
L−1
⎪
⎪ PC′ (p) + PD , i = L, L − 1, L − 2
⎪
⎪
where the term C (C′ ) represents the case of k errors involving the ⎨ p=k
Pi (k) = 
L−k+1
middle users for the downward (upward) extraction process and D ⎪
⎪ PC (p) + PD
(D′ ) represents the case of k errors involving the end user for i ≠ ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
1, 2 (i ≠ L, L − 1). At high SNR, the terms ⎪
⎪
p=i+1
⎪
⎪ i Ó {1, 2, 3, L − 2, L − 1, L}.
⎪
⎪ 
i−1
⎪
⎪ +

L−1 ⎪
⎪ PC′ (p) + PD′ ,
′ ⎩
(1 − PAF (i, p + k))(1 − PAF (i, m)), p=k
m=1, m=i, p, p+t, p+k (48)

L −1
′
(1 − PAF (i, p − k))(1 − PAF (i, m)),
Now, the average BER of an L-user AF MWRN can be obtained by
m=1, m=i, p, p−t, p−k
taking the expectation over all the L − 1 error events, as follows

L−1
(1 − PAF (i, m))
m=1, m=i, t+1, k 1  L−1
Pi, avg, AF = kP (k) (49)
L − 1 k=1 i
and


L −1 Substituting (48) and (47) in (49), the average BER of an AF
(1 − PAF (i, m)) MWRN can be asymptotically expressed as in (30), which
m=1, m=i, L−t, L−k+1 completes the proof.

IET Commun., 2016, Vol. 10, Iss. 3, pp. 272–282

282 & The Institution of Engineering and Technology 2016

View publication stats