IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SIGNAL PROCESSING, VOL. 67, NO.
13, JULY 1, 2019
Theoretical Analysis of the Peak-to-Average Power
Ratio and Optimal Pulse Shaping Filter
Design for GFDM Systems
Kaiming Liu , Member, IEEE, Weifeng Deng, and Yuan’an Liu, Member, IEEE
Abstract—Generalized frequency division multiplexing (GFDM)
has been regarded as a candidate for new multicarrier modulation
schemes in future wireless communication systems (e.g., 5G sys-
tems). However, GFDM systems still suffer from the problem of
high peak-to-average power ratio (PAPR). In this paper, theoretical
analysis of the PAPR distribution for GFDM signals is performed.
Exact closed-form expressions for the complementary cumulative
distribution function (CCDF) of PAPR are firstly derived for criti-
cally sampled and oversampled GFDM signals, respectively, which
tend to be sufficiently accurate as the number of subcarriers K is
large enough (e.g., K ≥ 64). With aid of theoretical analysis re-
sults, an optimization criterion for the design of pulse shaping fil-
ters is obtained, which can nearly achieve the globally minimum
CCDF results and is appropriate for practical applications. This
criterion can also achieve the globally optimal result for minimiz-
ing the variance of instantaneous power. Based on this criterion, a
measurement for the overall deviation of filter coefficients is pro-
posed, which can help to roughly and efficiently evaluate the ability
of PAPR reduction for pulse shaping filters. Although the PAPR
reduction effect is limited with pulse shaping filters, it is found
that large deviation may also lead to higher PAPR. Additionally,
with the aid of closed-form CCDF expressions, PAPR character-
istics of GFDM and other multicarrier systems (e.g., OFDM and
FBMC/OQAM) are compared thoroughly. Simulation results ver-
ify the validity and accuracy of derived theoretical results, and
demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed optimization design
criterion.
Index Terms—GFDM, PAPR, CCDF, Pulse shaping filter.
I. INTRODUCTION
ENERALIZED Frequency Division Multiplexing
G (GFDM) has been extensively studied in recent years and
regarded as one of the promising candidates for new modulation
schemes in future wireless communication systems (e.g., 5G
systems) [1], [2], due to its good properties including low
latency, low out-of-band (OOB) emission, robust against carrier
frequency offset (CFO) and timing offset (TO), and spectrum
Manuscript received July 11, 2018; revised February 20, 2019 and April 15,
2019; accepted May 6, 2019. Date of publication May 28, 2019; date of cur-
rent version June 5, 2019. The associate editor coordinating the review of this
manuscript and approving it for publication was Prof. Chandra Ramabhadra
Murthy. This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundations
of China under Grants 61701041 and 61327806. (Corresponding author: Kaim-
ing Liu.)
The authors are with the School of Electronic Engineering, Beijing Uni-
versity of Posts and Telecommunications, Beijing 100876, China (e-mail:
kmliu@bupt.edu.cn; dengweifeng@bupt.edu.cn; yuliu@bupt.edu.cn).
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TSP.2019.2919380
1053-587X © 2019 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.
See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
3455
agility, etc.. These properties make it appropriate for future in-
novative applications, such as Machine-Type Communications
(MTC), Internet of Things (IoT), Cognitive Ratio (CR), etc.
[3]–[8].
However, similar to other multicarrier modulation schemes,
GFDM still suffers from the problem of high Peak-to-Average
Power Ratio (PAPR) [8], [19]–[26], and several PAPR reduction
schemes have been proposed, e.g., clipping with iterative recep-
tion method [23], companding transforms [24], [46], and linear
precoding techniques [25], [26].
Theoretical analysis of the PAPR can be much helpful for
understanding the PAPR properties of multicarrier signals, as
well as for designs of PAPR reduction schemes (e.g., for non-
linear companding transforms [14]–[16]) and optimizations of
various nonlinear devices [9]–[18]. The well-known approxi-
mated expressions for the complementary cumulative distribu-
tion function (CCDF) of PAPR have been derived in Orthogonal
Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM) systems [9]–[11] and
Filter-Bank based Multi-Carrier with Offset Quadrature Ampli-
tude Modulation (FBMC/OQAM) systems [12], [13]. Theoreti-
cal results in OFDM systems indicated that the CCDF of PAPR
was mainly determined by the number of subchannels, and have
been employed for PAPR reduction designs [14]–[16]. Theoret-
ical results in FBMC/ OQAM systems indicated that the CCDF
of PAPR was determined by the number of subchannels and the
pulse shaping filters, and have also been adopted for the design
of PAPR reduction techniques [17], [18]. However, due to the
difference of the signal structure between GFDM and the other
two multicarrier systems [2], [27], [30], existing theoretical re-
sults cannot be implemented to GFDM systems directly. Actu-
ally, different pulse shaping filters between GFDM and OFDM
systems, and different overlapping patterns of complex-valued
signals between GFDM and FBMC/OQAM systems, lead to
different PAPR distribution properties.
To the best of authors’ knowledge, there have been no
theoretical analysis results for PAPR distribution properties
of GFDM signals in the literature yet. Previous analysis work
for PAPR distribution properties of GFDM signals was mainly
through simulations [19]–[22], which might be inconvenient
and insufficient. Meanwhile, an additional issue to be considered
for GFDM systems may be the optimization of pulse shaping
filters for minimizing the CCDF of PAPR, which has been
rarely addressed in the literature yet. In [44], authors researched
into the design of prototype filters for PAPR minimization while
maintaining the performance of OOB radiation and symbol
error rate (SER), and only provided an algorithmic solution.
Although the effect of PAPR reduction by pulse shaping filters
may be much limited compared with other PAPR reduction
3456
methods (e.g., methods in [23]–[26], [46]), it is still valuable to
address the theoretical optimization criterion, so as to evaluate
the PAPR reduction performance of candidate filters more
accurately and efficiently, make the best use of filters, and avoid
inferior design leading to serious performance degradation. On
the other hand, filter optimizations with other targets have been
performed for GFDM systmes (e.g., rate maximization and
OOB emission minimization in [31], minimizing receiver mean
square error (MSE) in [21]). Theoretical analysis results as well
as optimization criteria can also make joint optimization more
efficiently.
Additionally, it should be noted that compared with PAPR,
the variance of instantaneous power (VIP) is more related to
the nonlinear distortion caused by the power amplifier (PA) in
multicarrier systems, especially with low input backoff (IBO)
values [40]. Minimizing VIP has also been adopted as the opti-
mization target for designs of selected mapping (SLM) methods
in OFDM system [40], precoding schemes in OFDMA system
[41] and GFDMA system [26], and prototype shaping vectors in
circularly pulse-shaped (CPS) precoding OFDM (CPS-OFDM)
system [43]. It has been verified that minimizing VIP can not
only contribute to reduce PAPR statistically, but also help to re-
duce OOB emission and system bit error rate (BER). Thus VIP
may also be a valuable metric for the optimization design of
prototype filters in GFDM systems.
The main contributions of this paper can be summarized as
follows:
r An exact closed-form expression of CCDF for PAPRs of
critically sampled GFDM signals is firstly derived. This
expression tends to be sufficiently accurate as the number
of subcarriers K is large enough (e.g., K ≥ 64). This expres-
sion facilitates the evaluation of PAPR distribution prop-
erties of GFDM signals. It is verified that this expression
can be a generalized approximation for PAPR distributions
of other multicarrier signals (e.g., OFDM, FBMC/OQAM
signals). By introducing an exponential modifying factor,
an extended expression is obtained, which is appropriate
for calculating the CCDF of PAPR for oversampled GFDM
signals and can help to evaluate the CCDF of PAPR for
practical GFDM signals more accurately and efficiently.
r Two optimization problems of pulse shaping filter design
are formulated and mathematically optimal solutions are
obtained. The first one targets to minimize the CCDF of
PAPR directly, while the other one targets to minimize the
variance of instantaneous power (VIP). With aid of the-
oretical CCDF result for GFDM signals, locally optimal
solutions for the first problem are derived and compared
thoroughly. The preferred one solution is proved to be the
globally optimal solution for the second problem, and can
be an appropriate optimization criterion for practical appli-
cations. Based on this criterion, we also define a measure-
ment which can help to roughly and efficiently evaluate the
PAPR reduction ability of pulse shaping filter candidates.
Additionally, we analyze and demonstrate the compatibil-
ity of the proposed optimization criterion with some of
other existing optimization criteria.
r With the aid of theoretical CCDF results, we provide
more comprehensive and universal comparison results of
PAPR distributions among common multicarrier systems,
which can help to know about PAPR distribution prop-
erties of these systems more clearly and guide practical
applications.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SIGNAL PROCESSING, VOL. 67, NO. 13, JULY 1, 2019
Fig. 1. Frame diagram of GFDM transmitter.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section II
describes the mathematical model of GFDM signals. Theoretical
analysis of PAPR distributions is presented in Section III.
Section IV provides the optimization problems and solutions
for the design of pulse shaping filters. The PAPR compar-
isons among multicarrier systems are presented in Section V.
Section VI provides simulation results, and Section VII draws
conclusions.
II. GFDM SIGNAL MODEL
A. GFDM Transmit Signals
The GFDM signal is characterized by the block structure and
circular pulse shaping. In each GFDM signal block, M complex
data symbols are transmitted on each of the K subcarriers, thus
each GFDM signal block totally contains KM complex-valued
data symbols.
The block diagram of the GFDM transmitter is depicted in
Fig. 1. The serial complex-valued baseband data symbols are
firstly converted into K parallel data symbol streams, and in
each symbol stream, the mth (m ࢠ {0, 1, …, M−1}) subsymbol
is sampled by an oversampling factor Q (Q ࢠ Z+ ) and shaped
by a circularly time-shifted version of the prototype pulse shap-
ing filter. The prototype filter has a total length of L = QKM
and circularly shifts QK samples for each new coming subsym-
bol. Then, data samples are modulated onto K subcarriers and
added together to yield GFDM signals. Finally, a cyclic prefix is
added to each GFDM signal, and generated signals pass through
the digital-to-analog (D/A) converter and high-power amplifier
(HPA), and are sent into the wireless channel.
For the sake of simplicity, we set the oversampling factor Q
= 1, meaning GFDM subsymbols are critically sampled [25]
and the total length of prototype filter L = KM. From above de-
scriptions, the nth sample of each GFDM signal corresponding
to one signal block can be written as [3]
−1 K−1

M  2πkn
x [n] = dk [m] ĝm [n] ej K , n ∈ S, (1)
m=0 k=0
where dk [m] (k ∈ {0, 1, . . . , K − 1}) denotes the mth base-
band data symbol carried by the kth subcarrier in current signal
block, ĝm [n] = gTX [(n − mK) mod KM ] is the nth sample
of the mth circularly time-shifted prototype filter which has a
coefficient vector of gTX = [gTX [0] gTX [1] . . . gTX [KM − 1]],
and S = {0,1, …, KM−1} is the index set of samples in each sig-
nal block.
LIU et al.: THEORETICAL ANALYSIS OF THE PAPR AND OPTIMAL PULSE SHAPING FILTER DESIGN FOR GFDM SYSTEMS 3457

B. PAPR Definition for GFDM Signals and the variance of x[n] can be expressed by
As we known, the problem of high PAPR in multicarrier sys-   M −1

tems stems from the randomly coherent superposition of modu- σn2 = E |x[n]|2 = σd2 K |gTX [(n − mK)
lated subcarriers. In GFDM systems, there is no interference and m=0
superposition between adjacent signal blocks, due to the block × mod KM ]| , n ∈ S
2
(6)
structure and circularly time-shifted property of pulse shaping
filters. Thus the definition of PAPR for GFDM signals can be Obviously, the sampled signal will be a non-stationary com-
expressed by [26] plex Gaussian stochastic process and different samples have dif-
  ferent variances, if the sum term in (6) changes at different sam-
max0≤n≤KM −1 |x [n]|2 ple index n with certain pulse shaping filters.
PAPR =   , (2) As the amplitude of a complex Gaussian random variable
2
E |x [n]| follows the Rayleigh distribution, we can get the cumulative
distribution function (CDF) of the amplitude of x[n] (i.e., |x[n]|),
where E{ r} denotes that expectation operator, and E{|x[n]|2 } which can be written as
 
indicates the average power of GFDM symbols. Equation (2) CDF|x[n]| (x) = Prob {|x [n]| ≤ x} = 1 − exp −x2 /σn2 ,
actually examines total KM samples (with oversampling factor (7)
Q = 1) to find the peak power in each signal block, at each PAPR
To obtain the PAPR distribution result, we firstly consider the
value evaluation. We can see that by this definition, PAPR is
crest factor (CF), a measurement of the peak-to-average ampli-
evaluated in a block-by-block way. Equation (2) is reasonable
tude ratio of x[n], which is defined as
since all subsymbols in each signal block superpose together and
are generally detected together at the receiver in GFDM systems, maxn∈S {|x [n]|}
CF|x[n]| = √ , (8)
and there is no interference between adjacent signal blocks [2]. P̄
where P̄ = E{σn2 } denotes the average power of GFDM signals.
III. PAPR ANALYSIS FOR GFDM SYSTEMS The CCDF of CF can be written as
In this section, we will analyze the theoretical PAPR distri- CCDFCF (ζ) = Prob {CF > ζ}
butions of GFDM signals and derive the closed-form CCDF

expressions of PAPR for GFDM signals, which tend to be accu-
rate enough as the subcarrier number K increases. Additionally,
we will explore the relationship among the theoretical CCDF
expressions for GFDM signals and those for other multicarrier
system (i.e., OFDM, FBMC/OQAM) signals.
= 1 − Prob max {|x [n]|} ≤ ζ P̄ , (9)
n∈S
where ζ is the target threshold of CF.
It can be easily proved that |x[n]| (n ∈ S) are independent to
one another (in fact, ξm [n] are independently zero-mean com-
plex Gaussian random variables). Thus we have
 
A. Derivation of Theoretical CCDF Expressions of PAPR for Pr ob max {|x [n]|} ≤ ζ P̄
GFDM Signals n∈S

Firstly, equation (1) can be rewritten as −1

KM   
= Prob |x [n]| ≤ ζ P̄ . (10)

M −1
n=0
x [n] = ξm [n]gTX [(n − mK) mod KM ] , n ∈ S (3) According to (6), (9) and (10), we can obtain
−1   2 
m=0
KM
K−1 ζ P̄
where ξm [n](m = 0, 1, . . . , M − 1) denotes k=0 dk [m] CCDFCF (ζ) = 1 − 1 − exp − 2 . (11)
σn
ej2πkn/K . n=0
Assume that baseband data symbols on different subcarriers Note that CF is just the square root of PAPR. Thus we can
and different subsymbols are independent to one another, and easily obtain the CCDF of PAPR for GFDM signals, by replacing
have identical distribution. When the number of subcarriers K ζ 2 with the target PAPR threshold γ in (11), i.e.,
is large enough, according to the Central Limit Theorem (CLT), CCDFP AP R (γ) = Prob {PAPRGFDM > γ}
ξm [n] can be modeled as a complex circular symmetric Gaussian
variable [38], i.e., −1 
KM 
γ P̄
 KM −1
  =1− 1 − exp − 2 =1−
ξm [n] ∼ CN 0, Kσd2 , n ∈ S, (4) n=0
σn n=0
  
where CN (·, ·) denotes the complex Gaussian distribution and −γ P̄
σd2 denotes the variance of input data symbol dk [m] (k ࢠ {0,1, …, × 1 − exp  −1 .
K − 1}, m ࢠ {0, 1, …, M − 1}). As the linear combination of σd2 K M m=0 |gTX [(n−mK) mod KM ]|
2

independent Gaussian random variables is still Gaussian, we can (12)

obtain Let ψn (n ∈ S) be the nth superposed coefficients of M circu-
 −1
larly time-shifted pulse shaping filters in one block, i.e.,

M
2
x [n] ∼ CN 0, σd K 2
|gTX [(n − mK) mod KM ]| , 
M −1
m=0 ψn = |gTX [(n − mK) mod KM ]|2 , n ∈ S. (13)
(5) m=0
3458 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SIGNAL PROCESSING, VOL. 67, NO. 13, JULY 1, 2019

Due to the circularly time-shifted superposition of the pulse The appropriate value of ε is obtained through simulations
shaping filter, we can find that ψn is a periodic sequence, i.e., and can be set as ε ≈ 2.8. We will evaluate the accuracy of this
ψn = ψn + iK , n ∈ SP ; i = 0, 1, . . . , M − 1. (14) modified CCDF expression in Section VI.
Most of previous works have assumed odd M together with
where SP = {0, 1, . . . , K − 1} is the subset of indices in each even K for analysis, due to the singularity of the transmit matrix
periodic interval. Thus (12) can be simplified to be A with even M and K [2]–[5], [33]. In [45], authors proposed an
−1 
KM 
γ P̄
 approach to support even M and K by introducing a fractional
CCDFP AP R (γ) = 1 − 1 − exp − 2 shift in frequency domain to modify pulse shaping filters. This
n=0
σd Kψn approach has little change on signal statistical property, thus all
  M
K−1
above derivations can still hold and derived theoretical CCDF
γ P̄ results can be applicable for even M and K systems.
=1− 1 − exp − .
n=0
σd2 Kψn
(15) B. Relationship of Theoretical CCDF Expressions
Equation (15) implies that the CCDF of the PAPR in GFDM As GFDM system serves as a framework for multicarrier sys-
systems is determined by system parameters (i.e., K and M), tems [29], we will explore the relationship between theoretical
the average power of input baseband data symbols (i.e., σd2 ) and CCDF expressions of PAPR for GFDM signals and those for
GFDM signals (i.e., P̄ ), and superposition of pulse shaping filter other multicarrier signals (i.e., OFDM and FBMC/ OQAM sig-
coefficients (i.e., ψn ). nals).
Furthermore, if the pulse shaping filter has normalized total Firstly, we consider the relationship between GFDM and
power, i.e., OFDM systems. As we know, GFDM signals will turn into
OFDM signals when the rectangular filter is employed and the
−1
KM
subsymbol number M equals one (i.e., there is none circularly
|gTX [n]|2 = 1 (16) time-shifting and coefficient superposition with the pulse shap-
n=0
ing filter) [2]. As generally adopted, the rectangular filter is set
we should have to have normalized total power. Then the coefficients of the rect-

K−1 M
K−1 −1
 angular filter can be expressed by
ψn = |gTX [(n − mK) mod KM ]|2 = 1,  √
1/ K, n = 0, 1, 2, . . . , K − 1,
n=0 n=0 m=0 gTX [n] = (21)
(17) 0, n = K, K+1, . . . , KM − 1.
According to (6), (13) and (17), there will be If above filter is employed, the CCDF expression (19) will be

K−1 CCDFP AP R, Rect (γ) = 1 − [1 − exp (−γ)]KM . (22)
σn2 = Kσd2 . And when M = 1 holds, (21) will turn into
n=0
CCDFP AP R,I (γ) = 1 − [1 − exp (−γ)]K , (23)
From (6), (13) and (14), we can find that σn2 (n ∈ S) also has
a periodicity of K, i.e., σn2 = σn+iK
2
(n ∈ SP ) Thus we have which is just the well-known CCDF expression of PAPR for
K−1  OFDM signals (see equation (3) in [9]).
 2  Note that (22) actually evaluates the CCDF of PAPR in con-
P̄ = E σn = E σn /K = σd2 .
2
(18) secutive M transmitted GFDM symbols, when the rectangular
n=0 filter is employed. It can be viewed as introducing a time-domain
Equation (18) indicates that the pulse shaping filter with nor- parameter into PAPR evaluations.
malized power will not change the average power of input data And then, we investigate the relationship between GFDM and
symbols. Equation (15) can further be simplified to be FBMC/OQAM systems. Comparing the transmitter structures of
  M
K−1 these two systems, we can find that GFDM signals will turn into
γ FBMC/OQAM signals if we set M = 1 and extend the length of
CCDFP AP R (γ) = 1 − 1 − exp − . (19)
n=0
Kψn pulse shaping filter to be KQ. Thus the superposition of coeffi-
cients still exists due to the overlapping of pulse shaping filters
Above theoretical CCDF results are derived under the hypoth- for consecutive transmitted symbols. Under this conditions, and
esis of critical sampling (Q = 1). The practical continuous signal considering the time-overlapping property of prototype filters,
x(t) after the D/A converter may has higher PAPR, since discrete ψn defined in (13) should be expressed by
samples may not include all peaks of x(t) [11]. Thus (19) may 
loss accuracy for continuous signals. ψn = |hFBMC [n − qK]|2 , n ∈ SP , (24)
It has been proved that if the oversampling factor Q is large q∈Z
enough (e.g., Q ≥ 4), discrete samples x[n] show almost the same where hFBMC [n] is the nth sample of the prototype filter em-
PAPR distribution to that of continuous signals [11]. However, ployed by FBMC/OQAM systems. Substituting (24) into (19)
the derivation process for (19) does not hold for oversampled and setting M = 1, we will obtain
signals due to the dependence among adjacent samples. By em-
CCDFP AP R,II (γ)
ploying similar method in [11], we introduce an exponential
modifying factor ε to extend (19) for oversampling signals. The   

K−1
γ
modified CCDF expression can be expressed by =1− 1 − exp −  ,
K · q∈Z |hFBMC [n − qK]|2

QK−1 
γ
M ε n=0
CCDFP AP R (γ) = 1 − 1 − exp − . (25)
n=0
Kψn
(20)
LIU et al.: THEORETICAL ANALYSIS OF THE PAPR AND OPTIMAL PULSE SHAPING FILTER DESIGN FOR GFDM SYSTEMS 3459

which is just same to the CCDF expression of PAPR for 0, thus the exponential function exp(−1/x) is right-continuous
FBMC/OQAM signals (see equation (20) in [13]). at the point of x = 0.
From above descriptions, we can see that the derived CCDF As the target function defined in (28) is not a convex function
expression (15) can be viewed as a generalized approximation entirely in whole feasible region defined by (29) and (30), this
for the CCDF of PAPR for above multicarrier systems. This ex- optimization problem may have none global minimizer. In fact,
pression can help us evaluate the PAPR characteristics of multi- we can find that this optimization problem may mathematically
carrier systems more efficiently. Moreover, it can also guide us have two different forms of solution vector Ω with variant
to explore solutions for PAPR reductions. number of subcarriers and target PAPR thresholds, and so does
the desired Ψ. More specifically, for a given K and relatively
IV. OPTIMIZATION DESIGN FOR PULSE SHAPING FILTERS large γ satisfying (A-31), the locally optimal coefficient vector
should be
From (15) and (19), we can see that the coefficients of
pulse shaping filters actually influence the PAPR distribution ΨM inP D = (1/K, 1/K, . . . , 1/K )T , (31)
of GFDM signals, which makes it meaningful to seek optimiza-   
K
tion design criteria for pulse shaping filters in terms of PAPR
reduction. and the nth superposed coefficients should be expressed by
Based on theoretical CCDF results derived above, the opti-
mization target can be minimizing the PAPR distribution di- 
M −1
rectly, and we call this problem as Minimization of PAPR Dis- ψn = |gTX [(n − mK) mod KM ]|2 = 1/K, n ∈ SP .
tribution (MinPD). Additionally, as mentioned in Section I, it m=0
is valuable to adopt the target of minimizing VIP for optimiza- (32)
tion design, and we call this problem as Minimization of VIP
(MinVIP). While for a given K and relatively small γ dissatisfying
Without loss of generality, hereafter we still assume that pulse (A-31), the locally optimal coefficient vector should be in the
shaping filters have normalized total power. Additionally, for the form of
sake of simplicity, we still set the oversampling factor Q = 1.
The derived results can easily be extended to other scenarios by Ψ̂M inP D = (ψM ax , ψ̄, . . . , ψ̄ )T , (33)
  
some minor modifications. K−1

A. Minimization of PAPR Distribution (MinPD) Method where ψM ax is the largest element in Ψ̂M inP D and determined
Firstly, we seek the optimization design criterion with the by K and γ, and can be at any position in Ψ̂M inP D . All other ele-
target of minimizing the PAPR distribution directly, based on the ments are equal to be ψ̄ = (M − ψM ax )/(K − 1). More deriva-
relationship between theoretical CCDF results and coefficients tion details for (31)−(33) can be found in Appendix A.
of pulse shaping filters. We should compare (31) with (33) to determine which one is
According to (19), we can find that the PAPR distribution more appropriate for practical applications.
of GFDM signals is actually influenced by K superposed filter Firstly, we can see that the optimal coefficient vector defined
coefficients in one periodic interval. We define the vector of by (31) is only determined by K and has no relation to γ, which
these coefficients to be means that the optimality can universally hold for different tar-
get PAPR thresholds γ (relatively large enough). The particu-
Ψ = (ψ0 , ψ1 , . . . , ψK−1 )T , (26) lar solution result defined by (33) needs to be calculated with
where ( r)T denotes the transpose. Then the optimization target each given parameter group of {K, γ}, as indicated by (33) and
for the design of pulse shaping filter can be stated as finding (A-21), and will lose the optimality when γ increases to be large
the optimal Ψ to minimize the CCDF for certain target PAPR enough.
thresholds. For the sake of simplicity, we can also define an Secondly, it can be verified that even though the particular
auxiliary parameter of ωn = Kψn /γ(n ∈ SP ), and (19) will be solution result defined by (33) may lead to mathematically lower
CCDF for a given K and some relatively small γ when compared

K−1 
1
M
to (31), the superiority is so small that it can be ignored for
CCDFP AP R (γ) = 1 − 1 − exp − . (27) practical applications. Actually, the PAPR reduction ability of
n=0
ωn
the result defined by (33) is too weak for all γ and nearly useless
The optimization problem can then be formulated as for practical applications (see Appendix A and corresponding
 M 

K−1 
1
simulation results in Section VI).
Min 1 − 1 − exp − , (28) Consequently, (31) may be the preferred optimal criterion for
Ω
n=0
ωn the design of pulse shaping filters for practical implementations.
In fact, this criterion indicates that in order to reduce the CCDF

K−1
for certain PAPR thresholds as much as possible, the overlapped
s.t. ωn = K/γ, (29) pulse shaping filters tend to distribute the signal power uniformly
n=0 in the time domain.
ωn ≥ 0, ∀n ∈ SP , (30) Although the PAPR reduction may be limited only by the
optimized pulse shaping filter, the optimized filter can still help
where Ω = (ω0 , ω1 , . . . , ωK−1 ) is the desired solution vector
T
to reduce the PAPR to some extent and can relieve the burden of
of above optimization problem. Considering that the optimal other PAPR reduction algorithms to achieve the desired PAPR
Δ
solution result may lead to ωn = 0, we define exp(−1/x)|x=0 = distribution results.
3460 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SIGNAL PROCESSING, VOL. 67, NO. 13, JULY 1, 2019

B. Minimization of VIP (MinVIP) Method

According to (3) and (18), the VIP averaged over a GFDM
signal block can be defined as [26], [42]

1 −1

KM
2
2 
Pvar = E |x[n]| − P̄ . (34)
KM n=0

Based on (6), (13), (14) and (17), we can obtain

1 −1  
KM  
Pvar = E |x[n]|4 − 2σn2 σd2 + σd4
KM n=0

1 −1 
KM 
= E |x[n]|4 −σd4 . (35)
KM n=0 Fig. 2. CRM SE results for different filters with different roll-off factors.

According to (5), we can find that |x[n]|2 (n ∈ S) follows

the central chi-squared distribution with two degrees of freedom
[43], i.e., |x[n]|2 ∼ χ2 (2). Note that the real part and imaginary
part of x[n] have identical variance which equals to σn2 /2. Thus
the variance of |x[n]|2 can be calculated by
 
C. Measurement for Evaluation of PAPR Reduction Ability for
Pulse Shaping Filters
The optimization criterion of (30) can also be adopted as
a benchmark for evaluating the PAPR reduction performance
 2   2 2 of pulse shaping filter candidates. Here we define the normal-
σn ized root-mean-square-error (RMSE) of coefficients, CRM SE ,
Var |x[n]|2 = E |x[n]|2 − σn2 =4· = σn4 .
2 to evaluate the average deviation of actual ψn (n ∈ SP ) from the
(36) desired optimal value of 1/K for pulse shaping filter candidates,
which can be expressed by
According to (35) and (36), we obtain E{|x[n]|4 } = 2σn4 , and √
then (35) will be D F / K √
CRM SE = = K · D F , (41)
 1/K
2
KM−1 
K−1
Pvar = σ −σ = σd 2K
4 4 4
ψn − 1 . (37)
2
where || • ||F means the Frobenius norm, and D = [δ0 δ1 . . .
KM n=0 n d n=0 δK−1 ] is the deviation vector with each element δn defined as
Considering the constraint of (17), the optimization problem 
M −1
2 1
for MinVIP method can then be formulated as δn = gTX,C [(n − mK) mod KM ] − , n ∈ SP ,
m=0
K
Min Pvar (Ψ) , (38)
Ψ (42)

K−1 where gTX,C (n) denotes the nth coefficient sample of the filter
s.t. ψn = 1, (39) candidate. CRM SE = 0 indicates that the optimization criterion
n=0 of (31) is fulfilled and the filter candidate can maintain the low-
ψn ≥ 0, ∀n ∈ SP (40) est CCDF of PAPRs. As CRM SE increases, the filter candidate
might lead to higher PAPRs. A noteworthy feature of CRM SE is
We can find that this optimization problem has only one glob- that the increment of CRM SE is nearly linear to that of PAPR (in
ally optimal solution ΨM inV IP which is just same to the locally dB) at certain CCDF with a fixed M and different K (see simu-
optimal solution defined by (31), i.e., ΨM inV IP = ΨM inP D , lation results in Section VI). Thus it can be adopted as a general
and the minimum VIP should be σd4 . Thus we can achieve the measurement to roughly and efficiently evaluate the ability of
following corollary. PAPR reduction for pulse shaping filters, and be a benchmark
Corollary 1: The solution of ΨM inP D defined by (31) is the for filter design.
globally optimal solution for the MinVIP problem, and filters As an implementation example, we calculate correspond-
with coefficients satisfying the optimization criterion of (31) ing CRM SE for some common pulse shaping filters, including
can achieve the minimum VIP in GFDM systems. Dirichlet, Rectangular, 1st Xia, 4th Xia, Raised Cosine (RC)
Proof: See Appendix B. and Root Raised Cosine (RRC), to evaluate their potentialities of
This result indicates that the optimization criterion of (31) PAPR reduction. We can find that values of CRM SE for Dirichlet
actually minimizes the fluctuation of instantaneous power in and Rectangular filter always equal zero, indicating the optimal-
time domain, and so reduces the PAPR as much as possible. ity in term of PAPR reduction. Meanwhile, CRM SE values of
Note that the optimization criterion of (31) only relates to other four types of filters vary with roll-off factor, K and M (see
the amplitudes of filter coefficients in time domain. The frac- Fig. 2). From Fig. 2, we can see when roll-off factor is small
tional shifting approach proposed in [45] will not change the enough, some filters have small CRM SE near to zero, thus may
amplitudes of filter coefficients in time domain, since shifting have nearly optimal PAPR reduction capability. Larger roll-off
frequency response samples only lead to phase rotation with factor tends to increase CRM SE and degrade the PAPR reduc-
time response samples, thus the optimization criterion of (31) tion capability. CRM SE values can help us evaluate the PAPR
can be applicable for even M and K systems. reduction capabilities of different filters efficiently.
LIU et al.: THEORETICAL ANALYSIS OF THE PAPR AND OPTIMAL PULSE SHAPING FILTER DESIGN FOR GFDM SYSTEMS
D. Comparisons of Optimization Criteria for Design of Pulse
Shaping Filters
It should be noted that some other optimization criteria for
the design of pulse shaping filters in GFDM systems have also
been proposed in the literature [21], [31]. We can find that the
proposed optimization criterion in terms of PAPR reduction can
be compatible with some of other criteria.
In [21], authors designed low complexity minimum mean
square error (MMSE) receivers and proposed optimal filters
in terms of minimizing receiver MSE, based on the matrix
characterization method. The optimal filters were found to be
constant-magnitude-characteristic-matrix (CMCM) filters with
constant magnitude entries in corresponding characteristic ma-
trix of GFDM transmitter matrix. Authors also presented three
examples for CMCM filters, i.e., Dirichlet filter, a frequency-
shifted version of Dirichlet filter, and a modified Dirichlet filter.
We can verify that the latter two filters also lead to CRM SE = 0.
Actually, the following corollary states that all CMCM filters can
satisfy the optimization criterion of (30) simultaneously. This
corollary can guide us to design pulse shaping filters achieving
lowest PAPRs while maintain minimized receiver MSE.
Corollary 2: If a prototype filter is a CMCM filter as de-
fined in [21], it can satisfy the optimization criterion of (30) and
achieve the minimum PAPR distribution in GFDM systems.
Proof: See Appendix C.
In [31], authors researched into filter design problems focus-
ing on two optimization targets: rate maximization and OOB
radiation minimization. Authors presented five optimization
problems (see Problem 1∼Problem 5 in [31]) and provided nu-
merical or algorithmic solutions respectively. Some of designed
filters can satisfy the optimization criterion of (30), while others
cannot. Firstly, authors clarified that any filters satisfying the
power constraint were rate-optimal for GFDM systems with
the ideal nonlinear MF (matched filter)/SIC (successive inter-
ference cancellation) receiver in the AWGN channel. Secondly,
authors proved that only the Dirichlet filter was rate-optimal for
GFDM systems with the zero-forcing (ZF) or MMSE receiver
in the AWGN channel. And then, authors provided numerical
examples of OOB radiation-optimal filters for GFDM-MF/SIC
and GFDM-ZF systems, respectively (see Fig. 5 in [31]). We
can verify that the proposed two filters lead to CRM SE = 0.70
and CRM SE = 0.35 respectively, thus cannot satisfy (30).
Other optimization problems (i.e., rate-optimal with carrier
frequency offset, and joint design of filter and window) might be
too complicated and need more elaborative computations and
tradeoffs, thus none explicit designed result was provided and
it is untraceable for direct evaluating PAPR reduction abilities.
In [44], authors proposed a prototype filter optimization al-
gorithm for GFDM system with the PAPR minimization toward
GFDM data blocks, jointly considering maintaining the OOB
radiation under the maximum allowable level and minimizing
receiver MSE. This algorithm can actually be considered as an
approximate PAPR minimization, since it designs the prototype
filter only minimizing the maximum peak power of transmit
samples of given randomly generated blocks, with a constraint
that the total average power of transmit samples of generated
blocks is within a small range. Obviously, the performance of
this algorithm is closely related to the pre-generated data blocks,
and this offline training model may degrade the optimality for
long term and massive data block transmission. Joint optimiza-
tion may also degrade PAPR reduction performance to some ex-
tent. Compared with this algorithm, the proposed optimization
3461
criterion of (31) can achieve statistically optimal performance
in term of PAPR reduction, since it is entirely based on the
statistical property of transmit signals. Additionally, it declare
the relationship between filter coefficients and the CCDF result
mathematically, which makes the filter design, as well as joint
optimization with OOB and SER, more definitely and efficiently.
V. PAPR COMPARISONS
For practical applications, one generally concerned is-
sue may be the comparison of PAPR distribution property
among different multicarrier systems (e.g., GFDM, OFDM, and
FBMC/OQAM).
Some comparisons have already been performed between
GFDM system and other multicarrier systems [3], [19]–[22],
mainly through simulations with particular system parameters,
certain pulse shaping filters and assumed conditions (e.g., equal
bandwidth in [3], [19]–[21], or equal subcarrier numbers in
[22]). Due to the limitation of simulations, these comparison
results might be insufficient or lack of universality. With the aid
of theoretical analysis results presented in Section III, we could
perform comparisons more efficiently and obtain more universal
conclusions.
Considering most general cases in practical applications, we
still assume that pulse shaping filters adopted by all multicarrier
systems have normalized average power, and subcarrier numbers
are large enough (i.e., ≥ 64). And all multicarrier signals are
critical sampled for PAPR evaluations, which indicates that there
will be KM samples in each signal block of GFDM system,
and N samples in each symbol of OFDM and FBMC/OQAM
system. There is none particular constraint on the bandwidth or
subcarrier numbers.
Firstly, we focus our comparisons on GFDM system and
OFDM system. When optimal pulse shaping filters satisfying
(31) are employed by GFDM system, the CCDF of PAPR will
just be same to (21), and can be rewritten as
CCDFP AP R,GF DM (γ) = 1 − [1 − exp (−γ)]KM . (43)
While according to (23), the CCDF of PAPR for OFDM sys-
tem can be expressed by
CCDFP AP R,OF DM (γ) = 1 − [1 − exp (−γ)]N . (44)
Comparing (43) to (44), we can obtain following conclusions:
i) When KM > N, the PAPR of GFDM system should be
higher than that of OFDM system;
ii) When KM = N, the PAPR of GFDM system should be
equal to that of OFDM system;
iii) When KM < N, the PAPR of GFDM system should be
lower than that of OFDM system.
From above results, we can see that when GFDM system em-
ploys optimal filters, the relationship of PAPR between GFDM
and OFDM system is mainly determined by KM and N, or actu-
ally the total number of samples in each signal block of GFDM
systems and that in each symbol of OFDM system.
When non-optimal pulse shaping filters are employed by
GFDM system, the PAPR should increase. Thus when KM ≥
N holds, the PAPR of GFDM system should be definitely higher
than that of OFDM system. But if KM < N holds, the relationship
of PAPR should be uncertain, and be determined by particular
filters employed by GFDM system. We can adopt (19) and (44)
to calculate CCDF values and get comparison result directly.
Secondly, consider comparisons between GFDM system and
FBMC/OQAM system. According to (19) and (25), we can find
3462 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SIGNAL PROCESSING, VOL. 67, NO. 13, JULY 1, 2019

TABLE I
PARAMETERS OF SIMULATION SYSTEMS

Fig. 3. Theoretical and simulation results of PAPR distributions with different

K (M = 5, Q = 1, QPSK, RC filter with α= 0.1).

that CCDF results for both of these two systems are determined
by particular filters and the relationship is not straightforward.
We can also adopt (19) and (25) to calculate CCDF values and
obtain comparison result easily and directly.
However, for some application cases that subcarrier numbers
are relatively small, all theoretical CCDF expressions will be
not accurate enough, and simulations with particular system pa-
rameters have to be performed to obtain comparison results.

VI. SIMULATION RESULTS

A. Parameters of Simulation Systems
Parameters for simulation systems are listed in Table I. As
generally employed, subcarrier numbers (i.e., K for GFDM sys- Fig. 4. Theoretical and simulation results of PAPR distributions with different
tems and N for OFDM and FBMC/OQAM systems) are set to M (K = 256, Q = 1, QPSK, RC filter with α= 0.1).
be the power of 2 for conveniently adopting the Fast Fourier
Transform (FFT). Several types of common filters are consid-
ered for GFDM systems, and the typical PHYDYAS filter [28]
is adopted for FBMC/OQAM systems. All pulse shaping filters
have normalized average power in simulations.

B. Verifications for Theoretical Analysis Results in GFDM

Systems
In this subsection, we verify the accuracy of the theoretical
CCDF expressions derived in Section III. Additionally, we will
explore the influence of subcarrier number, subsymbol number,
pulse shaping filters and modulation order on the PAPR distri-
butions in GFDM systems.
Fig. 3 presents theoretical and simulation results of PAPR dis-
tribution in GFDM systems with different K and given M, pulse Fig. 5. Theoretical and simulation results of PAPR distributions with different
shaping filter and modulation scheme. From this figure, we can pulse shaping filters (M = 5, K = 256, Q = 1, QPSK).
see that increasing K will result in higher CCDF of PAPR. And
when K increases, the accuracy of the theoretical CCDF expres-
sions improves quickly, e.g., the PAPR gap between theoreti- Fig. 4 presents theoretical and simulation results of PAPR dis-
cal and simulation results for CCDF being 10−3 is only about tribution for M = 1, 5, 8, 16, and only theoretical results for M =
0.18 dB with K = 64, and reduces to be about 0.06 dB with K = 32, 45, 55 and 64, with given K, pulse shaping filter and modula-
128, and even much less when K increases further. These results tion scheme. All simulation results coincide with corresponding
suggest that the derived theoretical CCDF expressions could be theoretical results well. And from all theoretical results, we can
accurate enough and applicable for practical applications when see that increasing M will also result in higher CCDF of PAPR,
subcarrier number K is large enough (i.e., K ≥ 64). While for which can be attributed to the more superposition of complex-
relatively small K, we can find that simulated CCDF curves are valued signal components and more evaluated samples. But the
lower than those by theoretical CCDF expressions, thus theoret- CCDF increment rate tends to be slower as M increases.
ical results could be regarded as rough upper bounds for actual Fig. 5 and Fig. 6 provide theoretical and simulation results
CCDF values. of PAPR distributions, with different pulse shaping filters and
LIU et al.: THEORETICAL ANALYSIS OF THE PAPR AND OPTIMAL PULSE SHAPING FILTER DESIGN FOR GFDM SYSTEMS
Fig. 6. Theoretical and simulation results of PAPR distributions with different
modulation orders (K = 256, Q = 1, RC filter with α= 0.1, RRC filter with α=
0.9).
Fig. 7. Theoretical and simulation results of PAPR distributions with different
oversampling factor Q (QPSK, RC filter with α = 0.1).
modulation schemes respectively. We can also find that all sim-
ulation results coincide with corresponding theoretical results
well (PAPR gaps between theoretical and corresponding simu-
lation results are less than 0.06 dB in two figures when CCDF
is about 10−3 ). Thus the accuracy of derived theoretical CCDF
expressions can hold well for different pulse shaping filters and
modulation schemes. From Fig. 5, we can find that different
types of pulse shaping filters lead to different PAPR distribu-
tions, which accords with theoretical analysis results. While in
Fig. 6, we can see that with given system parameters and fil-
ters, CCDF results with different modulation schemes are almost
identical. These results may confirm that modulation schemes
have no influence on PAPR distributions, and also coincide with
theoretical analysis results.
Fig. 7 presents simulation and theoretical results of PAPR dis-
tributions with different oversampling factor Q and system pa-
rameters. From this figure, we can find that CCDF values with
critical sampling are truly lower than those with oversampling.
For oversampling case, with different Q, M and K, simulation
results coincide with theoretical results well. These results con-
firm the accuracy of (20). With Q = 4, 8, 16 and given M and K,
all CCDF curves almost overlap together. This result is desired,
since the PAPR distribution of discrete samples will be close to
that of actually continuous signals when the oversample factor
Q is large enough (Q ≥ 4).
Fig. 8 presents simulation and theoretical results of PAPR
distributions with different types of pulse shaping filters for the
3463
Fig. 8. Theoretical and simulation results of PAPR distributions with different
pulse shaping filters (M = 5, K = 256, Q = 4, QPSK).
Fig. 9. Theoretical results of PAPR distributions for pulse shaping filters de-
fined by Theorem 1 and Theorem 2. (M = 3, Q = 1).
oversampling case. We can find that simulation results coin-
cide with theoretical results well, which indicates that theoretical
CCDF expression (20) is accurate with different types of filters.
Additionally, Dirichlet and Rectangular filters still have the low-
est CCDF values, which actually indicates that the optimality of
these two filters can still hold in oversampling scenario, and the
optimization criterion of (31) can be extended to oversampling
case, as described in Section IV.
C. Evaluation of the Optimization Criterion for the Design of
Pulse Shaping Filters
Firstly, we compare the theoretical CCDF results of PAPR
for pulse shaping filters defined by Theorem 1 (i.e., equa-
tion (31)) and Theorem 2 (i.e., equation (33)) respectively (see
Appendix A). In Fig. 9 and Fig. 10, ‘PAPRthreshold ’ indicates
the PAPR threshold γ for calculating the coefficient vector de-
fined by Theorem 2. Fig. 9 presents theoretical CCDF results
for K = 64, 512 and 4096, with M = 3.
From Fig. 9, we can see that all CCDF results for pulse
shaping filters defined by Theorem 2 almost maintain constant
and are very close to 1 at different PAPR values, regardless
of γ. Meanwhile, although CCDF results for filters defined by
Theorem 2 are less than those of filters defined by Theorem1 at
relatively small PAPR values, we can see that the superiority is
too small and can be ignored for practical applications.
Fig. 10 confirms this result further and more clearly. Fig. 10
presents the difference between theoretical CCDF results for
3464
Fig. 10. Difference between theoretical CCDF results of PAPR for filters de-
fined by Theorem 1 and Theorem 2. (M = 3, Q = 1).
filters defined by Theorem 1 and Theorem 2. The x-label indi-
cates the PAPR thresholds, as well as the actual PAPR values
for CCDF evaluations. We can find that when PAPR is relatively
small, filters defined by Theorem 2 are indeed superior to filters
defined by Theorem 1, and the superiority enlarges as PAPR in-
creases and K decreases. But the superiority is truly too small at
different PAPR values. It should be noted that when γ is large
enough, the optimal solution of coefficient vector and the corre-
sponding filter defined by Theorem 2 will not exist, so all curves
terminate at certain PAPR values in Fig. 10. Additionally, the
optimality of filter defined by Theorem 2 can only hold when
PAPR is large enough, and filter defined by Theorem 1 will be
much better, which can also be seen from Fig. 9.
And then, we compare the theoretical CCDF results of optimal
pulse shaping filters defined by Theorem 1 (i.e., equation (31))
to those of other filters.
Here we provide two filter examples and evaluate CCDF re-
sults of them to validate the optimization criteria proposed in
this paper. The two filters are designed based on Corollary 2,
targeting lowest CCDF results while guaranteeing the receiver
performance. These two filters are modified from Dirichlet filter,
since it is a CMCM filter. According to Corollary 2, a CMCM fil-
ter after any phase rotating only in frequency domain can still be
a CMCM filter. This criterion provide flexibility for optimization
the phase-frequency characteristic of filters. These two filters are
designed to rotate the phases of frequency samples of Dirich-
let filter with a definite and linear increasing phase-rotation se-
quences and a random phase-rotation sequences, respectively.
The frequency response samples of these two filters are defined
as follows (here we set Q = 1):
Example-I: GExam−I [n] = GDirichlet [n] · exp(jnθ/KM ),
n ∈ S,
Example-II: GExam−II [n] = GDirichlet [n] · exp(jρπ/KM ),
n∈S
where GDirichlet [n] denotes the nth frequency response sample
of Dirichlet filter, θ denotes a constant phase (e.g., θ = π/3), and
ρ ∼ N(0, 1). Filter coefficients√in time domain can be obtained
by gExam = WKM H
· GExam / KM , with WKM H
be the Her-
mitian transpose of KM-point DFT matrix, gExam and GExam
be the filter sample vector in time domain and frequency domain,
respectively.
Theoretical CCDF results of different pulse shaping filters
are illustrated in Fig. 11. From Fig. 11, we can find that the
designed Example-I / II filters just have the same CCDF values
to those of optimal filters (i.e., Rectangular and Dirichlet filter).
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SIGNAL PROCESSING, VOL. 67, NO. 13, JULY 1, 2019
Fig. 11. Comparisons of theoretical CCDF results of PAPR for different pulse
shaping filters (M = 5, K = 256, Q = 1, QPSK).
Fig. 12. Theoretical results of PAPR distributions for different pulse shaping
filters with different CRM SE .
This result verifies the validity of Corollary 2 in term of CCDF
minimization. RC and RRC filters (with α = 0.1, 0.5, 0.9) have
higher CCDF results. We can also find that larger α lead to higher
CCDF, which can be attributed to larger CRM SE . RRC filters
have the worst PAPR performance. The difference of PAPR at
CCDF = 10−3 is about 1.5 dB between the RRC filter with α =
0.9 and the optimal filters.
We also provide simulation results to explore the relation be-
tween CRM SE defined in Section IV and theoretical CCDF re-
sults with given K and M, as depicted in Fig. 12. From Fig. 12, we
can find that with a given M, the same increment of CRM SE may
nearly lead to the same increment of PAPR for certain CCDF
with different K. And a step length of 0.1 for increasing CRM SE
may nearly lead to the PAPR increment of about 0.4 dB at CCDF
= 10−3 (except for an approximate 0.25 dB with CRM SE in-
creasing from zero to 0.1). These results indicate that CRM SE
can be employed as a measurement for approximately and effi-
ciently evaluating PAPR distribution properties of pulse shaping
filter candidates in practical applications.
In Fig. 13, theoretical PAPR distributions results with 4th Xia
filter and Dirichlet filter are presented, where KM is fixed and
set to be 2048. We can find that Dirichlet filter can maintain
the optimality of minimum CCDF with different K and M. The
CCDF results of 4th Xia filter vary with different K and M, which
can be attributed to the different CRM SE , as illustrated in Fig. 2.
Although fixed KM indicates same length of filter samples in
each block, different filter shapes will result in different PAPR
distribution results.
LIU et al.: THEORETICAL ANALYSIS OF THE PAPR AND OPTIMAL PULSE SHAPING FILTER DESIGN FOR GFDM SYSTEMS
Fig. 13. Theoretical and simulation results of PAPR distributions with fixed
KM (KM = 2048, Q = 1, QPSK).
Fig. 14. Simulation results of PAPR distributions with LFDMA, IFDMA and
NPC method (M = 5, K = 128, Q = 1, QPSK).
To evaluate PAPR reduction performance of different fil-
ters combined with PAPR reduction schemes, we present simu-
lated CCDF results for different filters combined with the local-
ized frequency division multiple access (LFDMA) method [8],
[25], interleaved frequency division multiple access (IFDMA)
method [8], [25] and the novel piecewise companding (NPC)
method [46], respectively. Simulation results are illustrated in
Fig. 14. When LFDMA method is employed, Rectangular filter
still has the lowest CCDF values, while PAPR reduction perfor-
mance of Dirichlet filter degrades about 1.5 dB at CCDF = 10−3 ,
compared with that of Rectangular filter, and is even inferior to
that of RRC filter with α = 0.1, 0.5. These results may conflict
with previous conclusions. The reason is that LFDMA is actually
a precoding method which changes the transmitted multicarrier
signals nearly to be single-carrier signals. The statistical prop-
erty of transmitted signals is changed, thus previous theoretical
analysis results as well as the optimization design criteria are not
applicable. Similar results can be found with IFDMA method.
Note that with IFDMA method and QPSK modulation, Rect-
angular filter leads to zero PAPR and this result is not drawn in
Fig. 14. Here we can see with IFDMA algorithm, RRC filter with
α = 0.5 has the lowest CCDF values, and Dirichlet filter has the
worst performance with a degradation about 2.8 dB at CCDF
= 10−3 , compared with the former. IFDMA method achieves
lower PAPR results than LFDMA method, since it is also a pre-
coding method and can equivalently change transmitted multi-
carrier signals into exact single-carrier signals. Simulation re-
sults with LFDMA and IFDMA methods also indicate that filter
3465
Fig. 15. Comparisons of theoretical results of PAPR distributions in OFDM,
FBMC/OQAM, and GFDM system (Q = 1).
optimization is still valuable, since appropriate filters can fur-
ther reduce PAPR effectively. With NPC method, Dirichlet and
Rectangular filters have nearly identical and the lowest CCDF
values, and reduce PAPR about 0.29 dB at CCDF = 10−3 , against
RRC filter with α = 0.9. Although the further PAPR reduction
is much less, these results also indicate that optimized filters can
still help to reduce PAPR further even when the employed PAPR
reduction methods have excellent PAPR reduction performance.
D. PAPR Comparisons of Different Multicarrier Systems
In this subsection, we compare PAPR distributions of different
multicarrier systems to verify analysis results in Section V.
Fig. 15 provides theoretical results of PAPR distributions of
OFDM, FBMC/OQAM, and GFDM systems. The subcarrier
number for OFDM and FBMC/OQAM system is fixed to be N
= 1024, while several values of KM and pulse shaping filters
are employed by GFDM system for comparisons. From this fig-
ure, it can be easily found that when GFDM system adopt the
optimal filter (here is the Rectangular filter), smaller KM (i.e.,
K = 256 and M = 2) leads to better CCDF results of PAPR
and larger KM (i.e., K = 256 and M = 7) leads to worse CCDF
results of PAPR, compared with those of OFDM system and
FBMC/OQAM system. The CCDF results of FBMC/OQAM
system are a little better, but very close to those of OFDM sys-
tem. When non-optimal filters are adopted by GFDM system,
the relationship will be uncertain. For example, when KM < N
holds (e.g., K = 128, M = 5; or K = 256, M = 3), GFDM sys-
tems have better CCDF results of PAPR compared with OFDM
system if the RRC filter with α = 0.1 or RC filter with α = 0.1
are employed, but worse CCDF results of PAPR if the RRC filter
with α = 0.9 is employed. And when KM = N holds (e.g., K =
256, M = 4), GFDM system employing the non-optimal filter
(i.e., RC filter with α = 0.9) has worse CCDF results, compared
with OFDM system. This result is desired, since only optimal
filters can make GFDM system have the same PAPR distribu-
tions to those of OFDM system when KM = N holds. All these
results match the analysis results in Section V.
E. Bit Error Rate (BER) Performance Comparisons
Lastly, we examine the transmission performance of dif-
ferent type of filters, as well as the proposed Example-I and
Example-II filters. Simulation results of BER performance in
AWGN channel are illustrated in Fig. 16, and zero forcing
3466 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SIGNAL PROCESSING, VOL. 67, NO. 13, JULY 1, 2019

APPENDIX A
Here we will prove that the optimization problem formulated
by (28)−(30) may have two different forms of locally optimal
solution vectors mathematically, and compare them to obtain the
ultimate solution vector which is more appropriate for practical
implementations.
By exploiting the monotonicity of the natural logarithm func-
tion, the optimization target (28) can equivalently be expressed
by
 K−1   
 1
Min − ln 1 − exp − . (A-1)
Ω
n=0
ωn
Fig. 16. Bit error rate of GFDM systems with different filters (M = 5, K = According to (A-1), (29) and (30), we can see the desired
256, Q = 1, QPSK, AWGN, ZF receiver, θ = π/3). solution vector Ω should be determined only by the subcarrier
number K and the target PAPR threshold γ.
Define the target function as
(ZF) detection [21] is employed. As desired, we can find that  
K−1 
1

Rectangular, Dirichlet, Example-I/II filters have nearly identical T (Ω) = − ln 1 − exp − , (A-2)
ωn
BER performance which is better than that of RC and RRC n=0
filters. Since Rectangular and Dirichlet are CMCM filters, and an auxiliary function to be
Example-I/II filters also achieve the optimal BER performance.  
This result verify the validity of Corollary 2, in term of achieving fA (x) = − ln 1 − e−1/x . (A-3)
minimization receiver MSE. The 1st Xia and 4th Xia filters with Δ
α = 0.1 are close to CMCM filter, thus have BER performance By the definition of exp(−1/x)|x=0 = 0 in Section (IV),
close to the optimal result. fA (x) is continuous and differentiable on the interval of
[0, +∞). The first-order and second-order derivative of fA (x)
can respectively be expressed by
VII. CONCLUSIONS
1 e−1/x
An exact closed-form expression of CCDF for the PAPR fA1 (x) = 2 · , (A-4)
x 1 − e−1/x
is firstly derived for critically sampled GFDM signals, and is  
modified to be suitable for oversampled GFDM signals. These 1 e−1/x 1 1
theoretical expressions reveal main factors influencing PAPR fA2 (x) = 3 · · · − 2 . (A-5)
x 1 − e−1/x x 1 − e−1/x
distribution of GFDM signals. These expressions tend to be
And then, the target function T (Ω) can also be expressed by
sufficiently accurate as K increases to be large enough (e.g., K
≥ 64). The derived theoretical CCDF expressions can be much   K−1

helpful for evaluating the PAPR characteristics of GFDM sig- T (Ω) = T (ω0 , ω1 , . . . , ωKM −1 )T = fA (ωn ). (A-6)
nals. With aid of theoretical analysis results, two optimization n=0
problems, i.e., MinPD and MinVIP, are formulated and solved. The target function T (Ω) is not a convex function entirely in
The preferred solution for MinPD problem can nearly achieve whole feasible region defined by (29) and (30), and it is difficult
globally minimum CCDF and is proved to be the globally to find the globally optimal solution vector directly. So we seek
optimal solution for MinVIP problem, and can minimize the the locally optimal solution vectors when ωn (n ∈ SP ) locates
fluctuation of instantaneous power. Based on this criterion, a in different intervals, which can be obtained through following
metric named CRM SE is proposed to evaluate PAPR reduction two theorems.
ability of filters efficiently, and increment of 0.1 with CRM SE
Theorem 1: If all ωn (ωn ∈ Ω) locate in the interval of [0, tC ]
may nearly lead to PAPR increment of 0.4 dB at CCDF = 10−3 .
The effect of PAPR reduction with common pulse shaping filters (here tC ≈ 0.6275 is the upper bound guaranteeing fA2 (x) larger
is much limited compared with special PAPR reduction algo- than or equal to zero), there is only one optimal solution vector
rithms. Filters with Large CRM SE may also lead to relatively Ω which has equal elements and can be expressed by
high PAPRs and degrade system performance. Theoretical ΩOptimal = (1/γ, 1/γ, . . . , 1/γ )T . (A-7)
CCDF results also provide efficient way for comparisons of   
K
PAPR distribution properties among multicarrier systems and
help to achieve more comprehensive and universal comparison Theorem 2: If one or more ωn (ωn ∈ Ω) locate in the interval
conclusions. of (tC , K/γ), the optimal solution vector Ω should have only
Based on analysis and discussions in this paper, we can see one ωn larger than tC and all of other elements should be equal
that there may be some valuable and suitable research direc- to one another. The optimal solution vector Ω should be in the
tions for future works, for example, joint optimization for the form of
design of filters, with targets of PAPR reduction, rate maximiza- Ω̂Optimal = (ω̂M ax , ω̄, . . . , ω̄ )T , (A-8)
tion, OOB radiation minimization, etc.; joint optimization de-   
sign of filters and PAPR reduction algorithms (e.g., clipping, K−1
compading, precoding); joint optimization design of filters and where ω̂M ax is the largest element and can be at any position in
multiple-input-multiple-output (MIMO) receivers, and so on. Ω̂Optimal , and ω̄ = (K/γ − ω̂M ax )/(K − 1).
LIU et al.: THEORETICAL ANALYSIS OF THE PAPR AND OPTIMAL PULSE SHAPING FILTER DESIGN FOR GFDM SYSTEMS 3467

A. Proof of Theorem 1 any ωn ∈ (0, tC ], we have ∂ 2 T /∂ωn2 ≥ 0 and F(Ω) is positive

Firstly, we prove that If all ωn (ωn ∈ Ω) locates in the interval semidefinite. And so, for any vector Ωa , Ωb ∈ Φ, we will have
of [0, tC ], any vector containing zero-value elements cannot be (Ωb − Ωa )T F (Ωa ) (Ωb − Ωa ) ≥ 0, (A-15)
the optimal solution vector.
which indicates that the target function T (Ω) is a convex func-
Assume that there is at least one zero-value element in Ω.
tion over the convex set Φ (refer to Theorem 22.5 and its exten-
Without loss of generality, we set ωv = 0 (v ∈ SP ). Obviously,
sion to nonopen sets in [40]).
Ω also has at least one element larger than zero, and we set
We now adopt the Lagrange Multiplier Method (LMM) to
ωμ > 0(μ ∈ SP , μ = v). Then vector Ω can be expressed by
obtain the critical point of T (Ω). By introducing a Lagrange
Ω = (. . . , ωμ , . . . , ωv , . . .)T . multiplier λ, the Lagrange function is defined as
Define a new vector Ω∗ = (. . . , ωμ − δ, . . . , ωv + δ, . . .)T ,  
K−1 
1

where δ is a positive real parameter and locates in the interval L (Ω, λ) = − ln 1 − exp −
ωn
of (0, ωμ /2). Obviously, Ω∗ still satisfies constraint condition n=0

of (28) and (29), and all elements still locate in the interval of K−1
 K
[0, tC ]. According to (A-6), we will have −λ ωn − . (A-16)
γ
T (Ω) − T (Ω∗ ) = fA (ωμ )−fA (ωμ − δ)−[fA (δ) − fA (0)] . n=0

(A-9) Let ∂L/∂ωn = 0 and ∂L/∂λ = 0, we can get

According to the Mean Value Theorem (MVT) [39], we have ∂L 1 e−1/ωn
= fA1 (ωn ) − λ = 2 · − λ = 0, (A-17)
fA (ωμ ) − fA (ωμ − δ) = fA1 (α) · δ, (A-10) ∂ωn ωn 1 − e−1/ωn

fA (δ) − fA (0) = fA1 (β) · δ, (A-11) ∂L 

where α ∈ (ωμ − δ, ωμ ) and β ∈ (0, δ) are real parameters.
Set fA2 (x) = 0 and solve this equation numerically, we can
obtain the solution tC ≈ 0.6275. It can be easily verified that
1/[x(1 − e−1/x )] is monotonically decreasing with x, thus for
x ∈ (0, tC ], we have fA2 (x) ≥ 0 and fA1 (x) is monotonically in-
creasing with x; for x ∈ (tC , K/γ), fA2 (x) < 0 and fA1 (x) is
monotonically decreasing with x.
As 0 < β < α < tC , we will have fA1 (α) > fA1 (β). Accord-
ing to (A-9), (A-10) and (A-11), we can obtain T (Ω) > T (Ω∗ ).
Due to the generality of ωv , we can conclude that for any Ω
containing zero-value elements, we could find a corresponding
new vector Ω∗ which can make the value of the target function
reduced further. Thus the optimal solution vector Ω should have
none zero element.
Secondly, we will seek the optimal solution vector Ω with
all elements locate in the interval of (0, tC ]. Define the new
constraint condition as
0 < ωn ≤ tC , ∀n ∈ SP . (A-12)
And define the new feasible region restrained by (A-12) and
(28) to be Φ (Φ ⊂ RK + ,, R+ denotes the K–dimensional positive
K this condition holds, ΩC will be the optimal solution vector (i.e.,
real vector space). Obviously, both of feasible regions defined
by (A-12) and (28) are convex sets respectively, thus Φ is also
a convex set (refer to Theorem 4.1 in [40]). Note that Φ is a
nonopen set, while RK + is an open set, and the target function
T (Ω) is twice differentiable over RK
+.
We can calculate elements of Hessian matrix F(Ω) for the
target function T (Ω) as follows
∂2T
= 0, ∀i, j ∈ SP , and i = j, (A-13)
∂ωi ∂ωj
 
∂2T 1 e−1/ωn 1 1
= · · · − 2 , ∀n ∈ SP
∂ωn2 ωn3 1 − e−1/ωn ωn 1 − e−1/ωn
(A-14)
Thus F(Ω) is a diagonal matrix, and main diagonal elements
are just its eigenvalues. According to analysis results above, for
K−1
K
= ωn − = 0. (A-18)
∂λ n=0
γ
Equation (A-17) is a transcendental equation and difficult to
be solved directly. Due to the monotonicity of fA1 (x) on the
interval of (0, tC ], it is reasonable to infer that (A-17) will has
unique solution (if it does exist) and all ωn should be equal to
one another. Taking (A-18) into account further, we can obtain
the solution result of
ωn = 1/γ, n ∈ SP ,
 
λ = γ 2 e−γ / 1 − e−γ
Thus the Lagrange function (A-16) has unique critical point
of
ΩC = (1/γ, 1/γ, . . . , 1/γ )T . (A-19)
  
K
Note that the necessary condition for ΩC ∈ Φ should be
1/γ ≤ tC , or γ ≥ 1/tC ≈ 2.02 dB equivalently. This condition
can easily be satisfied in practical applications, since we need
not to consider the CCDF of too small PAPR thresholds. When
ΩOptimal = ΩC ) for the optimization problem formulated by
(27), (35) and (A-12) (refer to Theorem 22.8 in [40]). And the
corresponding optimal coefficient vector for pulse shaping filters
will be expressed by (30). Thus Theorem 1 is proved.
B. Proof of Theorem 2
Actually, for the cases of one or more ωn (ωn ∈ Ω) locate
within (tC , K/γ), we can firstly employ the MVT to prove that
if we reduce all ωn larger than tC (except the maximum ele-
ment ωM ax ) to be tC , and increase ωM ax successively so as to
maintain the constraint condition of (29), the value of the tar-
get function can be reduced successively, and ultimately there
is only one element larger than tC (i.e., the maximum element).
Let U = {ωn |ωn > tC , n ∈ SP } be the set of all elements
larger than tC in vector Ω, and assume that the total number
3468
of elements is V (V ∈ Z+ , 1 ≤ V ≤ K). If V = 1, the first step
establishes naturally. So we begin with V ≥ 2.
For the largest element ωM ax and any other element ωv
(v ∈ SP ) in U, the value of target function T (Ω) can be cal-
culated by
 ments in corresponding solution vectors. Thus Theorem 1 is still
T (Ω) = fA (ωn ) + fA (ωM ax ) + fA (ωv ) .
n∈SP ,n=v
Now we reduce ωv to be tC and increase ωM ax to be
ω̂M ax = ωM ax + ωv − tC in Ω, we can obtain a new vector
of Ω̂ = (. . . , tC , . . . , ω̂M ax , . . .)T . Obviously, vector Ω̂ sill sat-
isfies constraint condition of (29) and (30). And the value of
target function T (Ω) should update to be
  
T Ω̂ = fA (ωn ) + fA (ω̂M ax ) + fA (tC ) .
n∈SP ,n=v
The different between T (Ω) and T (Ω̂) is
 
T (Ω) − T Ω̂ = fA (ωM ax ) − fA (ω̂M ax )
+ fA (ωv ) − fA (tC )
As fA (x) is continuous and differentiable on the interval of
[0, +∞), we can employ the MVT to obtain
fA (ωv ) − fA (tC ) = fA1 (α ) · (ωv − tC ) ,
fA (ωM ax ) − fA (ω̂M ax ) = −fA1 (β  ) · (ωv − tC ) , (A-24)
with parameter α ∈ (tC , ωv ) and β  ∈ (ωM ax , ωM ax + ωv
− tC ).
Then (A-22) should be
  ! "
T (Ω) − T Ω̂ = fA1 (α ) − fA1 (β  ) · (ωv − tC ) . (A-25)
As ωv ≤ ωM ax , there will be tC < α < β  . Considering that
fA1 (x)
is monotonically decreasing with x in the interval of
x ∈ (tC , K/γ), thus we have fA1 (α ) > fA1 (β  ). Additionally,
we have ωv > tC . According to (25), there will be
 
T (Ω) > T Ω̂ . (A-26)
This result indicate that reduce ωv to be tC and add the decre-
ment to ωM ax , the value of the target function can be reduced,
while constraint conditions can be maintained. We can repeat
this operation in set U successively, until there remains only one
element (i.e., the updated largest element of ω̂M ax ) larger than
tC in set U, and the value of the target function will be reduced
continuously. And so, if one or more ωn (ωn ∈ Ω) locate in the
interval of (tC , K/γ), the optimal solution vector Ω should have
only one element larger than tC .
And then, let us consider the ultimate vector Ω̂. The value of
the target function can accordingly be expressed by
   have ω̄ ≤ tC . For generally practical implementations, we only
T Ω̂ = fA (ωn ) + fA (ω̂M ax ) , (A-27)
ωn ∈Ω̂,ωn =ω̂M ax
Obviously, all elements except for ω̂M ax in Ω̂ locate in the
interval of (0, tC ]. According to Theorem 1, we will have
 due to K/γ > ω̂M ax > tC and the monotonically decreasing
fA (ωn ) ≥ (K − 1) fA (ω̄) , (A-28)
ωn ∈Ω̂,ωn =ω̂M ax
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SIGNAL PROCESSING, VOL. 67, NO. 13, JULY 1, 2019
where ω̄ = (K/γ − ω̂M ax )/(K − 1) is the average value of all
K−1 elements locating on (0, tC ]. According to the analysis
in Proof of Theorem 1, we can find that the upper bound for
guaranteeing the target function to be convex is a constant (i.e.,
tC ≈ 0.6275) and has no relation to the summation of all ele-
applicable here, and (A-28) will hold.
According to (A-27) and (A-28), we can see if there is at
(A-20)
least one ωn (ωn ∈ Ω) locating in the interval of (tC , K/γ), the
optimal solution vector Ω should have only one ωn larger than
tC and all other elements in Ω should be equal to each other.
The optimal solution vector Ω should be in the form of (A-8),
and the corresponding optimal coefficient vector should be in
the form of (33). Note that there is no limitation for the position
of the maximum element in optimal vectors. Thus Theorem 2 is
proved.
(A-21)
C. Remarks for Theorem 1 and Theorem 2
To obtain the particular solution vector defined by Theorem 2
with given K and γ, we should seek the optimal ω̂M ax . According
to (A-6) and (A-8), the target function T (Ω) can be expressed
(A-22) by
T Ω̂Optimal = fA (ω̂M ax ) + (K − 1) · fA (ω̄)
 
(A-23) K/γ − ω̂M ax
= fA (ω̂M ax ) + (K − 1) · fA . (A-29)
K −1
Equation (A-29) has only one variable of ω̂M ax . By set-
ting dT (Ω̂Optimal )/dω̂M ax = 0 and solve this equation numer-
ically, we can get the optimal ω̂M ax . This equation can be ex-
pressed by
 
dT Ω̂Optimal
= fA1 (ω̂M ax ) − fA1 (ω̄) = 0. (A-30)
dω̂M ax
Equation (A-30) contains nonlinear function and may have
non-unique solutions. We can get all critical points by solv-
ing (A-30) numerically and determine the one which minimizes
T (Ω̂Optimal ) to be ω̂M ax . We have calculated and obtained
ω̂M ax for some K and γ. For example, when K = 64, ω̂M ax
equals to 42.87, 32.00, 23.18, 15.88, 9.42, for γ (in dB) = 1, 2,
…, 5; when K = 512, ω̂M ax equals to 358.52, 273.30, 205.06,
150.17, 105.61, 68.64, for γ (in dB) = 1, 2, …, 6; when K
= 4096, ω̂M ax equals to 2941.88, 2265.20, 1725.42, 1293.96,
947.92, 668.63, 440.12, 245.18, for γ (in dB) = 1, 2, …, 8. We
also find that with a given K, (A-30) will has none solution when
γ is large enough.
And then, we will compare the actual values of target function
with different solution results respectively defined by Theorem 1
and Theorem 2.
According to the derivation of ω̄ in Proof of Theorem 2, we
consider γ ≥ 1/tC , thus we have (K/γ − tC )/(K − 1) < tC .
As ω̂M ax > tC , we have ω̄ < (K/γ − tC )/(K − 1). Due to the
monotonically increasing property of fA1 (x) within (0, tC ], we
obtain fA1 (ω̄) < fA1 ((K/γ − tC )/(K − 1)). In another hand,
property of fA1 (x) within (tC , K/γ), we obtain fA1 (ω̂M ax ) >
fA1 (K/γ).
LIU et al.: THEORETICAL ANALYSIS OF THE PAPR AND OPTIMAL PULSE SHAPING FILTER DESIGN FOR GFDM SYSTEMS 3469

TABLE II to (36) and (38), the Lagrange function can be defined as

CCDF VALUES WITH SOLUTION RESULTS OF THEOREM 1 K−1

∗
L (Ψ) = Pvar (Ψ) − λ ψn − 1
n=0
 K−1

K−1 
∗
= σd4 2K ψn2 −1 −λ ψn − 1 ,
n=0 n=0
Let ∂L(Ψ)/∂ψn = 0(n ∈ SP ), we get 4Kσd4 ψn = λ∗ ,
which indicates that all ψn should be equal. According to (38),
we can obtain ψn = 1/K(n ∈ SP ), and the critical point of
According to analysis above, we can find that if above Lagrange function is just equal to ΨM inP D defined by
(31). Obviously, the target function Pvar (Ψ) is convex over
fA1 (K/γ) > fA1 ((K/γ − tC ) / (K − 1)) , (A-31) whole feasible region defined by (39) and (40), and the feasible
fA1 (ω̂M ax ) fA1 (ω̄),
will be definitely larger than and (A-30) will region is a convex set, thus ΨM inP D is the globally optimal for
have none solution. Actually, when (A-31) holds, from (A-30) the MinVIP problem. Corollary 1 is proved.
we can find that T (Ω̂Optimal ) will be monotonically increas-
ing with ω̂M ax , and ω̂M ax = tC will result in the minimum APPENDIX C
T (Ω̂Optimal ). If ω̂M ax = tC holds, all ωn follow into the scope PROOF OF COROLLARY 2
of Theorem 1, and the solution result of Theorem 1 will be
Firstly, we give the concept of characteristic matrix as defined
better. Thus (A-31) can be viewed as a sufficient condition for
in [21]. Consider a KM × KM GFDM transmitter matrix A in
guaranteeing the solution result of Theorem 1 superior to that of
(3) with a prototype filter gTX . The characteristic matrix G of
Theorem 2. It should also be noted that (A-31) is not a necessary
the GFDM transmitter matrix A is defined as
condition, since it is a relatively broader restriction. √
By changing the greater-than sign to be equal sign in (A-31) G = N · Reshape (gTX , K, M ) · WM , (C-1)
and solving this equation numerically, we can obtain the critical where Reshape(gTX , K, M ) is a K × M matrix gener-
values of γ with certain K. We have calculated these values ated from gTX and the (k, m)-element is gTX (k + mK)
for K = 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024, 2048 and 4096, which are (k ∈ [0, K − 1], m ∈ [0, M − 1]).
about 7.63, 8.23, 8.75, 9.20, 9.60, 9.96 and 10.28, respectively Here we also denote that
(all in dB). And it can be easily verified that for any K ≥ 2, ĝTX = Reshape (gTX , K, M )
these values always exist. More importantly, according to the
monotonicity of fA1 (x) in different intervals, we can find that = [ĝTX (0) ; ĝTX (1) ; . . . , ĝTX (K − 1)] , (C-2)
when K is fixed and γ increases to be larger than the critical where the 1 × M vector ĝTX (k) (k ∈ [0, K − 1]) is just the kth
value, (A-31) will definitely hold (note that increasing γ will row of ĝTX (k).
reduce both of K/γ and (K/γ − tC )/(K − 1), and the former According to the definition of characteristic matrix in (C-1),
is always larger than the latter). So we can conclude that for we will have
any given K in practical implementations, the solution result of √
ĝTX = G · WM H
/ N. (C-3)
Theorem 1 will be definitely superior to that of Theorem 2 when
γ increases to be large enough. And for any row vector ĝTX (k), we will have
√
Additionally, we compare the actual CCDF performance of ĝTX (k) = G(k) · WM H
/ N , k ∈ [0, K − 1], (C-4)
pulse shaping filters with coefficient vector results by Theorem 1
where the 1 × M vector G(k) (k ∈ [0, K − 1]) is the kth row
and Theorem 2. We have calculated the CCDF by employing (19)
of G.
and (31) with different K, M and critical values of γ to evaluate
According to (C-4) and the Parseval’s Theorem [41], we can
the result of Theorem 1, as listed in Table II. From Table II, we
obtain
can see that all CCDF values are relatively high (larger than 0.2)
and some of them are nearly to be 1. It should be noted that with ĝTX (k) 2F = G(k) 2F /N, k ∈ [0, K − 1]. (C-5)
parameters of {K, M, γ} in Table II, solution results of The- where || • ||2F
indicates the vector energy.
orem 1 are superior to those of Theorem 2. Thus we can infer According to the definition of CMCM filters, the correspond-
that even if results of Theorem 2 have better CCDF performance ing characteristic matrix contains constant magnitude entries,
than those of Theorem 1 when γ is small and less than critical thus we will have
values listed in Table II, the superiority can be ignored for prac-
ĝTX (0) 2F = ĝTX (1) 2F = · · · = ĝTX (K − 1) 2F , (C-6)
tical implementations, since the corresponding values of CCDF
are too high. which indicates that all row vectors in ĝTX have equal energy.
According to (16) and (C-2), we just have

M −1
APPENDIX B
PROOF OF COROLLARY 1 ψn = |gTX [(n − mK) mod M K]|2
m=0
The MinVIP problem defined by (38)–(40) can also be solved
by the LMM. We introduce a Lagrange multiplier λ∗ . According = ĝTX (n) 2F , n ∈ SP . (C-7)
3470
According to (C-6) and (C-7), we can find that all ψn
(n ∈ [0, K − 1]) have equal value. Without loss of generality,
we still assume that the prototype filter has normalized total
power. Then, according to the constraint condition (21), we will
have ψn = 1/K (n ∈ [0, K − 1]), which is just the result of
(31). Consequently, all CMCM filters satisfy the optimization
criterion of (30) and can achieve the minimum PAPR distribu-
tion in GFDM system. Thus Corollary 2 is proved.
REFERENCES
[1] J. G. Andrews et al., “What will 5G be?,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun.,
vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 1065–1082, Jun. 2014.
[2] N. Michailow et al., “Generalized frequency division multiplexing for
5th generation cellular networks,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 62, no. 9,
pp. 3045–3061, Sep. 2014.
[3] G. Fettweis, M. Krondorf, and S. Bittner, “GFDM—generalized frequency
division multiplexing,” in Proc. 69th IEEE Veh. Technol. Conf. Spring,
Barcelona, Spain, 2009, pp. 1–4.
[4] G. Wunder et al., “5GNOW: Non-orthogonal asynchronous waveforms for
future mobile applications,” IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 97–
105, Feb. 2014.
[5] B. Lim and Y. C. Ko, “SIR analysis of OFDM and GFDM Waveforms with
timing offset, CFO, and phase noise,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun.,
vol. 16, no. 10, pp. 6979–6990, Oct. 2017.
[6] D. Zhang, M. Matthé, L. L. Mendes, and G. Fettweis, “A study on the link
level performance of advanced multicarrier waveforms under MIMO wire-
less communication channels,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 16,
no. 4, pp. 2350–2365, Apr. 2017.
[7] P. Wei, X. G. Xia, Y. Xiao, and S. Li, “Fast DGT-based receivers for
GFDM in broadband channels,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 64, no. 10,
pp. 4331–4345, Oct. 2016.
[8] S. Tiwari, S. S. Das, and K. K. Bandyopadhyay, “Precoded generalized
frequency division multiplexing system to combat inter-carrier interfer-
ence: Performance analysis,” IET Commun., vol. 9, no. 15, pp. 1829–1841,
2015.
[9] R. Van Nee and A. De Wild, “Reducing the peak-to-average power ratio of
OFDM,” in Proc. IEEE Veh. Technol. Conf., Ottawa, ON, Canada, 1998,
pp. 2072–2076.
[10] H. Ochiai and H. Imai, “On the distribution of the peak-to-average power
ratio in OFDM signals,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 49, no. 2, pp. 282–
289, Feb. 2001.
[11] S. H. Han and J. H. Lee, “An overview of peak-to-average power ratio
reduction techniques for multicarrier transmission,” IEEE Wireless Com-
mun., vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 56–65, Apr. 2005.
[12] A. Skrzypczak, P. Siohan, and J. P. Javaudin, “Analysis of the peak-
to-average power ratio for OFDM/OQAM,” in Proc. IEEE 7th Work-
shop Signal Process. Advances Wireless Commun., Cannes, France, 2006,
pp. 1–5.
[13] M. Chafii, J. Palicot, and R. Gribonval, “Closed-form approximations of
the PAPR distribution for multi-carrier modulation systems,” in Proc. 22nd
Eur. Signal Process. Conf., Lisbon, Portugal, 2014, pp. 1920–1924.
[14] J. Hou, J. Ge, D. Zhai, and J. Li, “Peak-to-average power ratio reduc-
tion of OFDM signals with nonlinear companding scheme,” IEEE Trans.
Broadcast., vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 258–262, Jun. 2010.
[15] S. S. Jeng and J. M. Chen, “Efficient PAPR reduction in OFDM sys-
tems based on a companding technique with trapezium distribution,” IEEE
Trans. Broadcast., vol. 57, no. 2, pp. 291–298, Jun. 2011.
[16] Y. Wang, L. H. Wang, J. H. Ge, and B. Ai, “An efficient nonlinear com-
panding transform for reducing PAPR of OFDM signal,” IEEE Trans.
Broadcast., vol. 58, no. 4, pp. 677–684, Dec. 2012.
[17] B. Elmaroud, A. Faqihi, M. Abbad, and D. Aboutajdine, “PAPR re-
duction of FBMC signals by combining exponential companding and
Hadamard transforms,” in Proc. Int. Symp. Netw. Comput. Commun., 2014,
pp. 1–4.
[18] Z. You, I. T. Lu, R. Yang, and J. Li, “Flexible companding design for
PAPR reduction in OFDM and FBMC systems,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf.
Comput. Netw. Commun., San Diego, CA, USA, 2013, pp. 408–412.
[19] J. Wu, X. Ma, X. Qi, Z. Babar, and W. Zheng, “Influence of pulse shap-
ing filters on PAPR performance of underwater 5G communication sys-
tem technique: GFDM,” Wireless Commun. Mobile Comput., vol. 2017,
Jan. 2017, Art. no. 4361589.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SIGNAL PROCESSING, VOL. 67, NO. 13, JULY 1, 2019
[20] N. Michailow and G. Fettweis, “Low peak-to-average power ratio for next
generation cellular systems with generalized frequency division multi-
plexing,” in Proc. Int. Symp. Intell. Signal Process. Commun. Syst., 2013,
pp. 651–655.
[21] P. C. Chen, B. Su, and Y. Huang, “Matrix characterization for GFDM:
Low complexity MMSE receivers and optimal filters,” IEEE Trans. Signal
Process., vol. 65, no. 18, pp. 4940–4955, Sep. 2017.
[22] R. Gerzaguet et al., “The 5G candidate waveform race: A comparison of
complexity and performance,” EURASIP J. Wireless Commun. Network-
ing, vol. 2017, 2017, Art. no. 13.
[23] L. Sendrei, S. Marchevský, N. Michailow, and G. Fettweis, “Iterative re-
ceiver for clipped GFDM signals,” in Proc. Int. Conf. Radio Elektronika,
2014, pp. 1–4.
[24] Z. Sharifian, M. J. Omidi, A. Farhang, and H. Saeedi-Sourck, “Polynomial-
based compressing and iterative expanding for PAPR reduction in GFDM,”
in Proc. 23rd Iranian Conf. Elect. Eng., Tehran, 2015, pp. 518–523.
[25] S. S. Das and S. Tiwari, “Discrete Fourier transform spreading-based gen-
eralized frequency division multiplexing,” Electron. Lett., vol. 51, no. 10,
pp. 789–791, May 2015.
[26] Z. Sharifian, M. J. Omidi, H. Saeedi-Sourck, and A. Farhang, “Linear
precoding for PAPR reduction of GFDMA,” IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett.,
vol. 5, no. 5, pp. 520–523, Oct. 2016.
[27] A. Farhang, N. Marchetti, and L. E. Doyle, “Low-complexity modem
design for GFDM,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 64, no. 6, pp. 1507–
1518, Mar. 2016.
[28] B. Farhang-Boroujeny, “OFDM versus filter bank multicarrier,” IEEE Sig-
nal Process. Mag., vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 92–112, May 2011.
[29] M. Matthé et al., “Generalized frequency division multiplexing: A flexible
multi-carrier waveform for 5G,” in 5G Mobile Communications. Cham,
Switzerland: Springer Int. Publ., 2017, pp. 223–259.
[30] S. B. Slimane, “Peak to average power ratio reduction of OFDM signals
using pulse shape,” in Proc. Global Commun., San Francisco, CA, USA,
2000, pp. 1412–1416.
[31] S. Han, Y. Sung, and Y. H. Lee, “Filter design for generalized frequency-
division multiplexing,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 65, no. 7,
pp. 1644–1659, Apr. 2017.
[32] X.-G. Xia, “A family of pulse-shaping filters with ISI-free matched and
unmatched filter properties,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 45, no. 10,
pp. 1157–1158, Oct. 1997.
[33] M. Matthé, L. L. Mendes, and G. Fettweis, “Generalized frequency di-
vision multiplexing in a Gabor transform setting,” IEEE Commun. Lett.,
vol. 18, no. 8, pp. 1379–1382, Aug. 2014.
[34] R. M. Corless, G. H. Gonnet, D. E. G. Hare, D. J. Jeffrey, and D. H. Knuth,
“On the Lambert w function,” Adv. Comput. Math., vol. 5, pp. 329–359,
1996.
[35] S. Mazahir and S. A. Sheikh, “On companding schemes for PAPR re-
duction in OFDM systems employing higher order QAM,” IEEE Trans.
Broadcast., vol. 62, no. 3, pp. 716–726, Sep. 2016.
[36] O. Johnson, Information Theory and the Central Limit Theorem. London,
U.K.: Imperial College Press, 2004.
[37] W. Rudin, Principles of Mathematical Analysis, 3rd ed. New York, NY,
USA: McGraw-Hill, 1976.
[38] E. K. P. Chong and S. H. Zak, An Introduction to Optimization, 4th ed.
New York, NY, USA: Wiley, 2013.
[39] John G. Proakis, Digital Signal Processing. 4th ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ,
USA: Prentice-Hall, 2006.
[40] A. Behravan and T. Eriksson, “Some statistical properties of multicarrier
signals and related measures,” in Proc. IEEE Veh. Technol. Conf.-Spring,
2006, pp. 1854–1858.
[41] D. Falconer, “Linear precoding of OFDMA signals to minimize their
instantaneous power variance,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 59, no. 4,
pp. 1154–1162, Apr. 2011.
[42] Y. Huang and B. Su, “Circularly pulse-shaped precoding for OFDM: A new
waveform and its optimization design for 5G New Radio,” IEEE Access,
vol. 6, pp. 44129–44146, 2018.
[43] S. M. Kay, Fundamentals of Statistical Signal Processing. Volume II: De-
tection Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA: Prentice-Hall, 1998.
[44] C.-L. Tai, B. Su, and P.-C. Chen, “Optimal filter design for GFDM that
minimizes PAPR under performance constraints,” in Proc. IEEE Wireless
Commun. Netw. Conf., Barcelona, Spain, Apr. 2018, pp. 1–6.
[45] A. Nimr, M. Matthé, D. Zhang, and G. Fettweis, “Optimal radix-2 FFT
compatible filters for GFDM,” IEEE Commun. Lett., vol. 21, no. 7,
pp. 1497–1500, Jul. 2017.
[46] Y. Li and W. Deng, “A novel piecewise nonlinear companding transform
for PAPR reduction in GFDM,” in Proc. 10th Int. Conf. Wireless Commun.
Signal Process., Hangzhou, China, 2018, pp. 1–5.