You are on page 1of 18

48

Chapter 3
Dual Mode Multiuser Detection with MMSE Detector

As found from the literature survey done in chapter 2, all multiuser
detection methods aim to increase channel capacity significantly. It is also
found that their computational requirement is more than the existing
conventional detector and poses a limit on implementation in practice.
Therefore, need of reduced computational complexity arises to make
practical implementation of all methods realizable. This chapter introduces
dual mode multiuser detector using MMSE detector for DS-CDMA systems,
which makes a choice between matched filter detector and MMSE detector
depending on the channel conditions. The dual mode detector increases
channel capacity at reduced complexity.
An introduction to linear detection is given in section 3.1 with
detailed formulation of MMSE detector. The dual mode detector is then
described in the next section.




49
3.1 Linear Detection

The simplest approach to demodulate CDMA signal is single user
matched filter. This detector is optimum for single user detection only.
However, in multiuser environment it becomes sub-optimal, as the signal of
desired user will suffer from interference due to other users. Optimum
multiuser detector has been proposed [12], which shows that the maximum-
likelihood sequence detector (MLSD) can achieve the optimum performance in
multiuser CDMA channels. However, maximum likelihood detection performs an
exhaustive search over all possible vectors to find the data set which has the
expected received waveform the closest to the actual received waveform. Hence,
unfortunately, it requires excessive computation and is too complex to be practical
for implementation in any but a trivial system. Accordingly some low-complexity
sub-optimal detection approaches have been considered to replace the
conventional MF. Those sub-optimal detectors can be divided into two types:
linear detectors and interference cancellation detectors [26].
The linear detectors mainly include the decorrelating (zero-forcing)
detector, and the minimum mean square-error (MMSE) detector. The
decorrelating detector multiplies the output of the conventional MF with the
inverse of the correlation matrix and therefore fully decouples the multiuser
signal. However, it suffers from the problem of noise enhancement [10]. Although
50
the MAI is completely removed, this process increases the noise level. In extreme
cases the extra noise can be higher than the MAI. In this situation the
decorrelation will actually result in worse performance than the conventional MF.
The MMSE detector, which can be regarded as an improved decorrelating
detector, can solve the problem of noise enhancement in low signal-to-noise ratio
(SNR). The MMSE detector does not completely remove the interference, but
for low signal-to-noise ratios results in better performance since the noise is
not enhanced in the same way as the decorrelator does. It has been shown
that, for very low signal-to-noise ratios the MMSE detector converges to the
conventional receiver, and for the high signal-to-noise ratios it converges to
the decorrelator[59]. Therefore, dual mode detector is analyzed with MMSE
detector in the following section.

3.1.1 MMSE Linear Multiuser Detector

Minimizing the mean square error is an approach to MMSE detector
that works as well as or better than decorrelator for all SNRs. The MMSE
receiver weighs the received statistic y with a weight vector w to form the
decision statistic. The matched filter output of the k
th
user, y
k
depends only
on the transmitted bits, the signature cross-correlation and the noise.
Therefore y is a sufficient statistic for estimating the transmitted bit b. As a
51
result, the decision algorithm for the MMSE detector can be implemented
into two steps. First a linear
^
M = b y of the transmitted bits b is obtained from
the matched filter output y. Second the estimate
^
b is compared to a threshold
of zero, and the final bit estimates are obtained to be the value of
^
) b sgn( .
The best estimate M linear transformation can be obtained by minimizing
[59]

^
^ ^
T
b
min E ( ) ( ) (3.1)
(
− −
(
¸ ¸
b b b b

or equivalently,
2
min E (3.2)
(
¸ ¸ M
b- My

since
2
T
trace{ } = x xx , It can be shown that
{ }
1
2
2
M M
min E min trace (3.3)


(
( = + σ
¸ ¸
¸ ¸
b- My I ARA

as a result the decision output of the MMSE linear detector can be obtained
by
( )
^
1
2
k
k
k
1
b sgn
A
− | |
( = + σ
|
¸ ¸
\ ¹
-2
R A y , where
2 2
2
1 k
diag ,...,
¦ ¹ σ σ
σ =
´ `
¹ )
-2
2 2
A
A A

52
It is clear that the dependence of the MMSE detector on the received
amplitudes is only through the signal to noise ratio (SNR). The block
diagram of MMSE linear detector is as shown in Fig. 3.1

In case of two synchronous users, linear MMSE detection can be shown as
[59]

2
1
2
2 2
2 2 2
2 2
2
1 2
2
1
1
1 1 (3.4)
1

( σ
+ −ρ
(
( | || | σ σ
(
( +σ = + + −ρ
( | |
¸ ¸
(
σ
\ ¹\ ¹ ¸ ¸
−ρ +
(
¸ ¸
-2
A
R A
A A
A

.
.
.
y(t)
MF
user 1
MF
user k
.
.
.
.
.
.
Fig. 3.1: MMSE linear detector for a synchronous DS-
CDMA system




[R+σ
2
A
-2
]
-1

^
b
1

^
b
k

53
As known from the literature, the single-user matched filter detector is
optimized to combat the background white noise, while the decorrelating
detector eliminates the multiuser interference regardless of the background
noise. Therefore, MMSE linear detector can be seen as a compromise
solution that takes into account the background noise and the interference of
each user. One can consider the conventional detector and the decorrelating
detector as a special case of the MMSE linear detector. If we fix A1 and let
A2, …, AK→0, then the first row of then the first row of
1
2

( + σ
¸ ¸
-2
R A becomes
2
1
2 2
1
, 0,..., 0
(
(
+ σ
¸ ¸
A
A
which corresponds to the matched filter for user 1. The MMSE
detector approaches the conventional detector as σ →∞ . On the other hand, if
we hold all the amplitudes fixed and let 0 σ → , then
1
2 1


( + σ →
¸ ¸
-2
R A R . As a
result, the MMSE linear detector converges to the decorrelating detector as
the signal-to noise ratios go to infinity. This fact implies that the MMSE
linear detector has the same asymptotic efficiency and near-far resistance as
the decorrelating detector. Moreover, the MMSE linear detector also
achieves optimum near-far resistance [27]. This motivates us to choose
MMSE detector for analysis of dual mode detector.



54
3.1.1.1 SIR in MMSE detector

In the MMSE detector, the adaptive weight vector is calculated using
various algorithms based on MSE criterion. The output is then taken by
multiplying the received signal by weight vector, which minimizes the mean
square error. Without loss of generality, we take user 1 cross correlation
vector between the desired symbol and received samples, which will be
X=E[b
1
r] = A
1
s
1
and (3.5)
K
T 2 2 T
k k k
k 1
E[ ] A s s (3.6) σ
=
= +

rr I
Therefore, solution of (3.5) will be given by vector
v* = E[rr
T
]
-1
E[b
1
r] (3.7)

1
K
2 2 T
1 k k k 1
k 1
A A s s s (3.8) σ

=
(
= +
(
¸ ¸

I

In MSE criterion the cost function E[|y
1
- A
1
b
1
|
2
] is minimized . The
wiener solution weight vector of which for user 1 [10] may be described as
linear transformation
( ) [ ] ( ) ( ) [ ]
2 T
T * T 1
1 1 1
1
K
2 T 2 2 T
1 1 k k k 1
k 1
E b 1 E b E E b (3.9)
1 A s A s s s σ


=
(
( − = −
¸ ¸
(
¸ ¸
(
= − +
(
¸ ¸

r v r rr r
I

55
The alternative expression for MMSE transformation and MSE error as
( )
1
K
2 2 T
1 k k k 1
k 1 *
1
K
2 T 2 2 T
1 1 k k k 1
k 1
2
T *
1 1
K
2 T 2 2 T
1 1 k k k 1
k 1
A A s s s
and (3.10)
1 A s A s s s
1
E b (3.11)
1 A s A s s s
σ
σ
σ

=

=

=
(
+
(
¸ ¸
=
(
+ +
(
¸ ¸
(
− =
(
¸ ¸
(
+ +
(
¸ ¸



I
v
I
r v
I

The
*
v achieves maximum output signal to noise ratio of any linear
transformation and can be expressed as

( )
( ) ( )
( )
) 13 . 3 ( 1
b E
1
) 12 . 3 (
s b A E
s b A E
SIR
2
*
1
2
T
1 1 1
2
T
1 1 1
MMSE

(
¸
(

¸


=
(
¸
(

¸


(
¸
(

¸

=
v r
v r
v
T
* T
*

This ratio is nothing but the ratio of the signal of desired user and the total
interference, which is the sum of interferences from signals of other users
and the channel noise power. The SIR can also be written as
56
( ) ( )
) 14 . 3 (
A σ A
A
SIR
2
1
1
1 , 1
1 2 2
2
1
MMSE
− +
=


R

where (.)
1,1
-1
denotes element of first row and first column of the inverse
matrix. This equation can again be seen as ratio of the signal of user 1 and
the variance from the output (the total signal minus the signal of user1 will
be the total interference). Based on the developed SIR relation for MMSE
detector, dual mode detector is discussed in the following section.

3.1.2 Dual mode detector

The MMSE detector implements the linear mapping which minimizes
the mean squared error between the actual data and the soft output of the
conventional detector. As we have already seen that the MMSE detector
implements partial modification in inverse of correlation matrix. The amount
of modification is directly proportional to background noise; the higher the
noise level, the less complete an inversion of R can be done without noise
enhancement causing performance degradation. Thus, MMSE detector
balances the desire to decouple the users (and completely eliminate MAI)
with the desire not to enhance the background noise [27]. In particular
MMSE detector is shown to be the most efficient in all linear multiuser
57
receivers [28] in terms of maximum SIR and minimum BER. It operates
more likely to be same as conventional detector when SIR is small, but when
SIR is large it gives less BER. The performance gain afforded by the MMSE
detector over the conventional detector depends on the SIR at which the
system is to be operated, and this in turn depends on the data rate, amount of
coding and symbol size [10]. It is shown in [28] that for a DS-CDMA system
with random spreading codes, the spectral efficiency of matched filter and
MMSE detector is same. Therefore, at low SNR matched filter can be used,
which is less computationally complex (does not require matrix
multiplication and also knowledge of SNR of all other users) than MMSE
detector. It is therefore, inefficient to apply MMSE detector in a situation
where it does not significantly outperform the matched filter.

Based on the above discussions, a dual mode detector which switches
between matched filter and MMSE detector is studied [71]. The reason of
taking MMSE detector among two linear detectors (decorrelator and MMSE)
is that it has minimum BER or maximum Signal to Interference Ratio (SIR)
in all linear multiuser detectors. As MMSE detector takes background noise
into account, it performs better than the decorrelator . As the background
noise goes to zero, the MMSE detector converges in performance to that of
decorrelator. It is also shown that the MMSE detector offers significant
58
practical advantage that it can be adapted blindly i.e. without the use of
training sequences or knowledge of interfering signature waveforms. Thus
adaptive form of this detector is among the most likely candidate for
practical application of multiuser detection. However, for low value of Signal
to Noise Ratio (SNR), MMSE detector behaves in the same manner as
matched filter, which is simpler to implement. Hence by exploiting the
performance-complexity tradeoff between matched filter and MMSE
detector, a new design based on MMSE detector is presented in [71].
The detector proposed switches between MMSE detector and matched
filter based on SNR value. The matched filter in addition to being simpler
than MMSE detector, offers same BER for low SNR. Therefore, at low SNR,
the detector switches to matched filter and at high SNR it switches to MMSE
detector where, its BER is significantly lower than the matched filter. Thus
without degrading the performance, the complexity of overall circuit will be
lower than if only MMSE detector is used at all time.
The block diagram of dual mode detector is shown in Fig. 3.2. The
received signal is first processed by bank of matched filters, which anyway
also required in case of MMSE detector. If multiuser detection is required,
the signal is passed to a block where matrix multiplication is done for MMSE
detector, otherwise it is directly passed to the symbol decision block. The
59
key functioning of this detector depends on the SNR value and number of
users. In a real cellular environment, where, background interferences are
sometimes very strong, this detector will take MMSE detector path. When
traffic on the channel is less, detector switches to matched filter thereby
saving complexity.






Fig. 3.2: Block diagram of Dual Mode Detector

The switching criterion of our dual mode detector is based on the
random channel conditions. The SIR for user 1 with total K users in matched
filter detector can be expressed as [10]
) 15 . 3 (
σ A ρ
A
SIR
K
2 j
2 2
j
2
j , 1
2
1
MF

=
+
=

where σ
2
is the variance of noise and ρ
1,j
are the elements of cross
correlation matrix. The SIR for user 1 in MMSE detector can be expressed
Channel
estimatio
n
Compare
required and
calculated
parameters
Matched
filter
detector
calculate
MMSE
matrix

Decision


Yes

No
Multip
ly by
matrix
IS MUD
Required
?
60
as[59]
( ) ( )
) 16 . 3 (
A σ A
A
SIR
2
1
1
1 , 1
1 2 2
2
1
MMSE
− +
=


R

The matched filter detector is computationally simpler than MMSE
detector, hence when received SNR is below 5 dB, the proposed detector will
switch to it, otherwise it will use MMSE detector .The MMSE detector is
advantageous only in the case when SIR in MMSE is more than SIR of
matched filter.
Simulation results are shown here to verify that at low SNR range
MMSE detector and matched filter detector have same BER while for large
SNR, MMSE detector performs significantly better than matched filter
detector (Fig. 3.3). Note that at high SNR decorrelator and MMSE detector
work almost similar and and at very low range they have almost same BER.
Therefore we have taken MMSE detector instead of decorrelator to take
advantages of MMSE detector over decorrelator. This can be verified
mathematically as explained. As the MMSE matrix is M = (R+σ
2
A
-2
)
-1
, at
low SNR (or very high σ
2
) it approximately becomes M = (σ
2
A
-2
)
-1
which is
same as the matched filter. At high SNR (or very low σ
2
) it approximates to
M = (R)
-1
, which is nothing but decorrelator matrix. Thus MMSE detector
works in between these limits.
61
In Fig.3.4, the dual mode detector’s working criterion is shown,
which uses matched filter at low SNR and MMSE detector at high SNR. The
overall complexity of the proposed detector will depend on the percentage of
total time it uses matched filter or MMSE detector . The value of SNR is
also dependent on the random behavior of channel noise and background
interferences and therefore behavior and complexity will be different for
each case. The nominal SNR of all users are taken in the range of -2 to 12
dB. In practical situations, where channel behavior is unpredictable, if this
detector takes matched filter most of the time (because of low SNR), then it
will be computationally simpler than that if only MMSE detector is alone
used just to take its advantages. Also an option available in this detector is
that if SNR becomes high it can use MMSE detector which provides less
BER but computationally complex. The BER variation in the output with
SNR difference is shown in Fig. 3.5, which further justifies the working of
dual mode detector . Initially, when SNR is low (-10 to 5 dB), conventional
MF and MMSE detector behave almost in same manner. The dual mode
detector uses MF at low SNR, but for high SNR, it takes MMSE detector. It
is again clear from the figure that at high SNR, MF does not show
improvement in BER. The working of dual mode detector is again analyzed
with respect to the number of users in Fig. 3.6. It is again clear from the
results that for less number of users, where both detectors behave in same
62
manner, using MF is advantageous to save the computational requirements,
whereas, for large number of users capacity enhancement is achieved using
MMSE detector.



Fig. 3.3: BER output of matched filter, decorrelator,
MMSE detector and dual mode detector



63




Fig. 3.4: Switching condition for dual mode detector with matched filter
and MMSE detector
64

Fig. 3.5: BER output vs. SNR difference (2 users) for
Dual Mode Detector

65

Fig. 3.6: BER output vs. number of users for dual mode detector
3.2 Conclusion
In this chapter a dual mode detector with a switching action between
existing conventional matched filter detector and MMSE detector is
presented. The dual mode detector enhances channel capacity compared to
existing conventional MF detector at reduced computational requirement,
thereby making MMSE method more realizable in practice. To explore
further capacity improvement, analysis done in this chapter is extended with
nonlinear interference cancellation multiuser detection methods in the
following chapter.

Accordingly some low-complexity sub-optimal detection approaches have been considered to replace the conventional MF. it suffers from the problem of noise enhancement [10]. which shows that the maximumlikelihood sequence detector (MLSD) can achieve the optimum performance in multiuser CDMA channels. Those sub-optimal detectors can be divided into two types: linear detectors and interference cancellation detectors [26]. Although 49 . and the minimum mean square-error (MMSE) detector. maximum likelihood detection performs an exhaustive search over all possible vectors to find the data set which has the expected received waveform the closest to the actual received waveform. This detector is optimum for single user detection only. as the signal of desired user will suffer from interference due to other users.3. in multiuser environment it becomes sub-optimal. However. The linear detectors mainly include the decorrelating (zero-forcing) detector. it requires excessive computation and is too complex to be practical for implementation in any but a trivial system.1 Linear Detection The simplest approach to demodulate CDMA signal is single user matched filter. Optimum multiuser detector has been proposed [12]. unfortunately. However. The decorrelating detector multiplies the output of the conventional MF with the inverse of the correlation matrix and therefore fully decouples the multiuser signal. Hence. However.

3. and for the high signal-to-noise ratios it converges to the decorrelator[59]. It has been shown that. The MMSE detector does not completely remove the interference. the signature cross-correlation and the noise. As a 50 . In this situation the decorrelation will actually result in worse performance than the conventional MF. can solve the problem of noise enhancement in low signal-to-noise ratio (SNR).the MAI is completely removed. dual mode detector is analyzed with MMSE detector in the following section. The MMSE detector. but for low signal-to-noise ratios results in better performance since the noise is not enhanced in the same way as the decorrelator does. Therefore.1. which can be regarded as an improved decorrelating detector. The matched filter output of the kth user.1 MMSE Linear Multiuser Detector Minimizing the mean square error is an approach to MMSE detector that works as well as or better than decorrelator for all SNRs. Therefore y is a sufficient statistic for estimating the transmitted bit b. The MMSE receiver weighs the received statistic y with a weight vector w to form the decision statistic. this process increases the noise level. In extreme cases the extra noise can be higher than the MAI. for very low signal-to-noise ratios the MMSE detector converges to the conventional receiver. yk depends only on the transmitted bits.

My  = min trace I + σ−2 ARA      M M 2 { −1 } (3. First a linear b = My of ^ the transmitted bits b is obtained from ^ the matched filter output y. Second the estimate b is compared to a threshold ^ of zero.. It can be shown that 2 min E  b .. The best estimate M linear transformation can be obtained by minimizing [59] ^ ^   min E (b − b)T (b − b)  ^   b (3. where σ2 A -2 = diag  2 .. 2  by b k = sgn    Ak  k  Ak  A1 ( ) 51 . 2 min E  b .result. and the final bit estimates are obtained to be the value of sgn( b) .3) as a result the decision output of the MMSE linear detector can be obtained ^ −1  1   σ2 σ2   R + σ2 A -2  y  .. the decision algorithm for the MMSE detector can be implemented into two steps.1) or equivalently.My    M (3.2) since x = trace{xx T } .

. . .1 MF user 1 y(t) [R+σ2A-2]-1 ^ b 1 . ^ b k Fig. MF user k . . 3.4) 52 .1: MMSE linear detector for a synchronous DSCDMA system In case of two synchronous users. . . 3. linear MMSE detection can be shown as [59]  σ2 −1 1 +  σ 2  σ2  2   A 2 2  R + σ 2 A -2  =  1 + 2 1 + 2  − ρ      A1  A 2    −ρ    −ρ   2  σ 1+ 2  A1  (3. The block diagram of MMSE linear detector is as shown in Fig. .It is clear that the dependence of the MMSE detector on the received amplitudes is only through the signal to noise ratio (SNR).

. If we fix A1 and let A2. 53 . the single-user matched filter detector is optimized to combat the background white noise. On the other hand.0. MMSE linear detector can be seen as a compromise solution that takes into account the background noise and the interference of each user. ….0   2 A1 + σ2   −1 becomes which corresponds to the matched filter for user 1. if  R + σ2 A -2  → R −1 . This fact implies that the MMSE linear detector has the same asymptotic efficiency and near-far resistance as the decorrelating detector. Therefore. AK→0. then the first row of then the first row of  R + σ2 A-2    2  A1  . One can consider the conventional detector and the decorrelating detector as a special case of the MMSE linear detector. The MMSE σ→∞ detector approaches the conventional detector as we hold all the amplitudes fixed and let σ→0. the MMSE linear detector converges to the decorrelating detector as the signal-to noise ratios go to infinity. while the decorrelating detector eliminates the multiuser interference regardless of the background noise. Moreover..   −1 then As a result.As known from the literature. the MMSE linear detector also achieves optimum near-far resistance [27]... . This motivates us to choose MMSE detector for analysis of dual mode detector.

The wiener solution weight vector of which for user 1 [10] may be described as linear transformation 2 T E ( b1 − r T v* )  = 1 − ( E [ b1r ]) E rr T        ( ) −1 E [ b1r ] −1 (3. which minimizes the mean square error. the adaptive weight vector is calculated using various algorithms based on MSE criterion.1.9) K  2 T  =1 − A1 s1 σ 2 I + ∑ A 2 s k s T  s1 k k k =1   54 .8) In MSE criterion the cost function E[|y1 .1 SIR in MMSE detector In the MMSE detector.5) (3. Without loss of generality.7) (3.6) Therefore.3. we take user 1 cross correlation vector between the desired symbol and received samples. solution of (3.A1 b1 |2] is minimized .1. The output is then taken by multiplying the received signal by weight vector. which will be X=E[b1r] = A1 s1 and E[rr T ] = σ 2 I + ∑ A 2 s k s T k k k =1 K (3.5) will be given by vector v* = E[rrT]-1 E[b1 r] K   = A1 σ 2 I + ∑ A 2 s k s T  s1 k k k =1   −1 (3.

12) = 1 2 E  b1 − r T v *      ( ) −1 (3.10) 2 E ( b1 − r T v* )  =     1 K   2 1 + A s σ 2 I + ∑ A k s k sT  s1 k k =1   2 T 1 1 −1 (3.The alternative expression for MMSE transformation and MSE error as K   2 A1 σ 2I + ∑ A k s k s T  s1 k k =1   v* = and −1 K 2 T  2 2 T 1 + A1 s1 σ I + ∑ A k s k s k  s1 k =1   −1 (3. which is the sum of interferences from signals of other users and the channel noise power.11) The v* achieves maximum output signal to noise ratio of any linear transformation and can be expressed as SIR MMSE = 2 T E  A1b1s1 v *      ( T E  r T − A1b1s1   (( ) )v )    * 2 (3. The SIR can also be written as 55 .13) This ratio is nothing but the ratio of the signal of desired user and the total interference.

dual mode detector is discussed in the following section. the higher the noise level.SIR MMSE = A2 1 ((A 2 + σ 2 R −1 ) ) 1. 3. In particular MMSE detector is shown to be the most efficient in all linear multiuser 56 .14) where (. This equation can again be seen as ratio of the signal of user 1 and the variance from the output (the total signal minus the signal of user1 will be the total interference).2 Dual mode detector The MMSE detector implements the linear mapping which minimizes the mean squared error between the actual data and the soft output of the conventional detector. The amount of modification is directly proportional to background noise. MMSE detector balances the desire to decouple the users (and completely eliminate MAI) with the desire not to enhance the background noise [27]. the less complete an inversion of R can be done without noise enhancement causing performance degradation. Based on the developed SIR relation for MMSE detector. As we have already seen that the MMSE detector implements partial modification in inverse of correlation matrix.1 −1 −A 2 1 (3.1. Thus.)1.1 -1 denotes element of first row and first column of the inverse matrix.

It operates more likely to be same as conventional detector when SIR is small. at low SNR matched filter can be used. it performs better than the decorrelator . amount of coding and symbol size [10]. The reason of taking MMSE detector among two linear detectors (decorrelator and MMSE) is that it has minimum BER or maximum Signal to Interference Ratio (SIR) in all linear multiuser detectors. the MMSE detector converges in performance to that of decorrelator. It is shown in [28] that for a DS-CDMA system with random spreading codes. It is therefore. It is also shown that the MMSE detector offers significant 57 . As the background noise goes to zero. As MMSE detector takes background noise into account. Therefore. and this in turn depends on the data rate.receivers [28] in terms of maximum SIR and minimum BER. which is less computationally complex (does not require matrix multiplication and also knowledge of SNR of all other users) than MMSE detector. the spectral efficiency of matched filter and MMSE detector is same. The performance gain afforded by the MMSE detector over the conventional detector depends on the SIR at which the system is to be operated. inefficient to apply MMSE detector in a situation where it does not significantly outperform the matched filter. but when SIR is large it gives less BER. Based on the above discussions. a dual mode detector which switches between matched filter and MMSE detector is studied [71].

for low value of Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR).practical advantage that it can be adapted blindly i. without the use of training sequences or knowledge of interfering signature waveforms. offers same BER for low SNR. The matched filter in addition to being simpler than MMSE detector. The 58 . The received signal is first processed by bank of matched filters. otherwise it is directly passed to the symbol decision block. Therefore. a new design based on MMSE detector is presented in [71]. However. at low SNR. MMSE detector behaves in the same manner as matched filter. Thus adaptive form of this detector is among the most likely candidate for practical application of multiuser detection. the detector switches to matched filter and at high SNR it switches to MMSE detector where.e. its BER is significantly lower than the matched filter. the signal is passed to a block where matrix multiplication is done for MMSE detector. which anyway also required in case of MMSE detector. If multiuser detection is required. The block diagram of dual mode detector is shown in Fig. Thus without degrading the performance. The detector proposed switches between MMSE detector and matched filter based on SNR value. which is simpler to implement. Hence by exploiting the performance-complexity tradeoff between matched filter and MMSE detector. 3. the complexity of overall circuit will be lower than if only MMSE detector is used at all time.2.

key functioning of this detector depends on the SNR value and number of users. The SIR for user 1 in MMSE detector can be expressed 59 .2: Block diagram of Dual Mode Detector The switching criterion of our dual mode detector is based on the random channel conditions. 3. detector switches to matched filter thereby saving complexity. Channel estimatio n Compare required and calculated parameters No IS MUD Required ? Matched filter detector Decision Yes calculate MMSE matrix Multip ly by matrix Fig. When traffic on the channel is less. where. j A j j= 2 K (3.j are the elements of cross correlation matrix. background interferences are sometimes very strong. The SIR for user 1 with total K users in matched filter detector can be expressed as [10] SIR MF = A2 1 2 2 ∑ ρ1. In a real cellular environment. this detector will take MMSE detector path.15) +σ 2 where σ2 is the variance of noise and ρ1.

60 .16) ((A 2 + σ 2 R −1 ) ) 1. hence when received SNR is below 5 dB.3). the proposed detector will switch to it.as[59] SIR MMSE = A2 1 (3.1 −1 −A 2 1 The matched filter detector is computationally simpler than MMSE detector. otherwise it will use MMSE detector . Thus MMSE detector works in between these limits. Therefore we have taken MMSE detector instead of decorrelator to take advantages of MMSE detector over decorrelator. Note that at high SNR decorrelator and MMSE detector work almost similar and and at very low range they have almost same BER. which is nothing but decorrelator matrix. Simulation results are shown here to verify that at low SNR range MMSE detector and matched filter detector have same BER while for large SNR. at low SNR (or very high σ2) it approximately becomes M = (σ2A-2)-1 which is same as the matched filter. This can be verified mathematically as explained. As the MMSE matrix is M = (R+σ2A-2)-1 . At high SNR (or very low σ2 ) it approximates to M = (R)-1. 3. MMSE detector performs significantly better than matched filter detector (Fig.The MMSE detector is advantageous only in the case when SIR in MMSE is more than SIR of matched filter.

it takes MMSE detector. Also an option available in this detector is that if SNR becomes high it can use MMSE detector which provides less BER but computationally complex.5.3. but for high SNR. if this detector takes matched filter most of the time (because of low SNR). where channel behavior is unpredictable. then it will be computationally simpler than that if only MMSE detector is alone used just to take its advantages.4. which uses matched filter at low SNR and MMSE detector at high SNR. 3. Initially. The overall complexity of the proposed detector will depend on the percentage of total time it uses matched filter or MMSE detector .6. The value of SNR is also dependent on the random behavior of channel noise and background interferences and therefore behavior and complexity will be different for each case. MF does not show improvement in BER. where both detectors behave in same 61 . The nominal SNR of all users are taken in the range of -2 to 12 dB.In Fig. The working of dual mode detector is again analyzed with respect to the number of users in Fig. 3. the dual mode detector’s working criterion is shown. The dual mode detector uses MF at low SNR. It is again clear from the results that for less number of users. The BER variation in the output with SNR difference is shown in Fig. It is again clear from the figure that at high SNR. conventional MF and MMSE detector behave almost in same manner. which further justifies the working of dual mode detector . when SNR is low (-10 to 5 dB). In practical situations.

manner. for large number of users capacity enhancement is achieved using MMSE detector. decorrelator. using MF is advantageous to save the computational requirements. MMSE detector and dual mode detector 62 . 3. Fig. whereas.3: BER output of matched filter.

4: Switching condition for dual mode detector with matched filter and MMSE detector 63 .Fig. 3.

3. SNR difference (2 users) for Dual Mode Detector 64 .Fig.5: BER output vs.

analysis done in this chapter is extended with nonlinear interference cancellation multiuser detection methods in the following chapter.2 Conclusion In this chapter a dual mode detector with a switching action between existing conventional matched filter detector and MMSE detector is presented.6: BER output vs. 3.Fig. The dual mode detector enhances channel capacity compared to existing conventional MF detector at reduced computational requirement. To explore further capacity improvement. 65 . thereby making MMSE method more realizable in practice. number of users for dual mode detector 3.