ARTICLE IN PRESS

Signal Processing 87 (2007) 2823–2833 www.elsevier.com/locate/sigpro

MMSE vector precoding with joint transmitter and receiver design for MIMO systems$
Feng LiuÃ, Lingge Jiang, Chen He
Department of Electronic Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai 200240, China Received 23 November 2006; received in revised form 28 May 2007; accepted 29 May 2007 Available online 7 June 2007

Abstract The transmitter side (Tx) vector precoding (VP) shows excellent performance. However, joint transmitter and receiver (Tx–Rx) design might achieve further improvement. In this paper, we propose a novel joint Tx–Rx VP for multiple input multiple output (MIMO) systems. A unitary matrix is used at the receiver to partially equalize the channel. We design the joint Tx–Rx VP with the minimum mean square error (MMSE) criterion and deduce the general closed-form solution. Then we apply several methods including the singular value decomposition, QR decomposition and geometric mean decomposition (GMD) to specify the general joint Tx–Rx VP design. Moreover, by using the extended channel, we achieve an improved scheme to obtain further performance gain. Simulation results show that the specification with GMD method outperforms the other specifications and the Tx MMSE VP. The improved joint Tx–Rx MMSE VP with GMD is superior to other MMSE VP schemes. r 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: MIMO systems; MMSE vector precoding; Joint transmitter and receiver design; Geometric mean decomposition

1. Introduction It has been shown that the multiple input multiple output (MIMO) systems achieve high capacity and better performance than the single-antenna systems [1–3]. If the channel state information (CSI) is available at the transmitter, precoding technique can be exploited to improve the system performance. The ‘‘vector perturbation technique’’ [4,5] is a new transmitter side (Tx) technique which gener$ This research is supported by the Science and Technology Committee of Shanghai Municipality (under Grant No. 06DZ15013). ÃCorresponding author. Tel.: +86 21 34204578 603. E-mail address: fengliu@sjtu.edu.cn (F. Liu).

alizes the Tomlinson–Harashima precoding (THP) [6] for MIMO systems. It is also called as vector precoding (VP) by the following researchers. The key idea is to add a perturbation component to the data symbols, which shapes the symbols to satisfy a special goal. As in the THP, the perturbation symbol in VP is an integer scaled by a factor and can be eliminated by a modulo operation at the receiver. In contrast with the THP, the perturbation symbol in VP can be purposively designed. In [4,5] Tx zero forcing (ZF) VP and an improved regularized VP are proposed which minimizes the transmit energy. In [7] Tx minimum mean square error (MMSE) VP is designed to minimize the mean square error (MSE) instead of the transmit energy and achieves better performance

0165-1684/$ - see front matter r 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.sigpro.2007.05.025

ARTICLE IN PRESS
2824 F. Liu et al. / Signal Processing 87 (2007) 2823–2833

than the Tx ZF VP and the Tx regularized VP. All these Tx VP schemes significantly outperform conventional THP. Without the cooperation among the receiver antennas, these Tx VP schemes are adaptable to broadcast channels and point-to-point channel. However, joint transmitter and receiver (Tx–Rx) design for VP might achieve further performance improvement. In this paper, we consider a simple scenario where only a unitary matrix is used at the receiver. This design adapts to the point-to-point channel. With MMSE criterion, we deduce a closedform solution of the joint Tx–Rx VP design. We find it generalizes the Tx MMSE VP. Then some specifications of the general joint Tx–Rx VP are considered: by singular value decomposition (SVD), by QR decomposition (QRD), and by geometric mean decomposition (GMD) [8]. Then we propose an improved version of the joint Tx–Rx VP by using the extended channel. We compare the performance of these specifications by computer simulations and find that the specifications by GMD method significantly outperform the Tx VP and the specifications by SVD and QRD methods. The improved joint Tx–Rx MMSE GMD VP is shown to be superior to the other VP schemes and achieve further diversity gain. Notation: Throughout the paper, we will denote vectors and matrices by lower and upper case bold letters, respectively. We use E( Á ), ( Á )H, ( Á )À1, and tr( Á ) for expectation, conjugate transposition, the inverse, and the trace of a matrix, respectively. The identity matrix is denoted by I. The norm of a vector or matrix is denoted as || Á ||. The rest of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 introduces the system model. Subsequently, we propose the joint Tx–Rx MMSE VP in Section 3. Simulation results are provided in Section 4. Finally, Section 5 concludes the paper. 2. System model We consider a MIMO system with MT transmit and MR receive antennas in a frequency flat fading channel. A block of data symbols with length NB is transmitted at each channel instance. There is a total power constraint PT for the transmitted block. Throughout the paper, we assume that perfect CSI is known at both the transmitter and receiver. The signal model is expressed as y½nŠ ¼ Hx½nŠ þ n½nŠ; n ¼ 1; 2; Á Á Á ; N B , (1)

where y[n] is the nth MR  1 symbol vector among the received block, x[n] the nth MT  1 symbol vector among the transmitted block, n[n] the corresponding nth MR  1 vector of independent additive white Gaussian noise with zero-mean and covariance Rn ¼ s2 I, and H the MR  MT indepenn dent zero-mean unit-variance complex Gaussian channel. We note that the more general frequencyselective channel can be represented by a spatial– temporal channel with a larger dimensionality. Hence, (1) is rather general. VP schemes generate transmitted symbols x[n] as a function f (which will be derived later) of the mix of data symbols s[n] and perturbation symbols p[n] as x½nŠ ¼ f ðd½nŠÞ; n ¼ 1; 2; Á Á Á ; N B , (2) where d½nŠ9s½nŠ þ p½nŠ is the nth MR  1 mixed symbol vector. The perturbation vector p[n] is chosen from an integer lattice aZM R with an integer scalar a. At the receiver, a modulo operation (mod a) is used to remove the perturbation vector p[n]. If square M-point Gray coded quadrature amplitude modulation (QAM) constellation pffiffiffiffiffiffi & '2 M À1 1 Æ ;ÁÁÁ;Æ 2 2 with variance pffiffiffiffiffiffi ðM À 1Þ=6 is used, the scalar is s2 ¼ s set to be a ¼ M . In this paper, we consider a simple scenario for joint Tx–Rx design by using a unitary matrix AH at the receiver to partially equalize the channel as ^ d½nŠ ¼ gAH y½nŠ; n ¼ 1; 2; Á Á Á ; N B , (3)

where g is a power control factor. Finally, the symbol is estimated after the modulo operation ^ ^ s½nŠ ¼ d½nŠ mod a; n ¼ 1; 2; Á Á Á ; N B . (4)

The proposed joint Tx–Rx VP design is demonstrated by Fig. 1. 3. Proposed schemes In this section, we consider the problem of joint Tx–Rx VP design with the MMSE criterion for the above model. We first deduce the generalized solution of the problem. Then specializations based on different methods are given. And then an improved version of the joint Tx–Rx VP design is proposed with the extended channel. Finally, we provide the performance analysis and some discussion.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
F. Liu et al. / Signal Processing 87 (2007) 2823–2833 2825

n[n] s[n] d[n] f ( ⋅) Sphere encoding p opt [n]∈
MR

x[n] H g AH

ˆ d [n] mod

ˆ[n] s

Fig. 1. Demonstration of the proposed joint Tx–Rx VP design for MIMO systems.

3.1. Problem formulation and solution Our goal is to find the optimal solution to determine the perturbation vector p[n] AND the function f (i.e. the relationship between x[n] and d[n]). The power control factor g can also be included into this question. We choose the MMSE criterion to design the joint Tx–Rx VP. The measurement is the total MSE of the difference between the mixed symbol block and its estimation, which is defined as
NB X n 2 o ^ ðp½nŠ; x½nŠ; gÞ9 E d½nŠ À d½nŠ , n¼1

x½nŠ ¼ gÀ1 ðHH H þ xIÞÀ1 HH Ad½nŠ ¼ gÀ1 HH ðHHH þ xIÞÀ1 Ad½nŠ;
n ¼ 1; 2; Á Á Á ; N B ,

ð9Þ
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi u NB u1 X À ÁÀ2 dH ½nŠAH H HHH þ xI HH Ad½nŠ g¼t PT n¼1

vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi u NB u1 X ¼t dH ½nŠAH ðHHH þ xIÞÀ1 HHH ðHHH þ xIÞÀ1 Ad½nŠ, PT n¼1

ð10Þ where x ¼ N B trðRn Þ=PT , and we use the Cholesky factorization ðHHH þ xIÞÀ1 ¼ LH L to obtain the triangular matrix L. The minimal MSE obtained by the above optimal solution is given by ¼x
NB X n¼1 NB X  LAðs½nŠ þ p½nŠÞ2 . ¼x n¼1

(5)

which can be computed as ðp½nŠ; x½nŠ; gÞ ¼
NB X n 2 o E gAH ðHx½nŠ þ n½nŠÞ À d½nŠ n¼1

dH ½nŠAH LH LAd½nŠ ð11Þ

NB X n ÃH ¼ E gAH ðHx½nŠ þ n½nŠÞ À d½nŠ

 ÃÉ Â gAH ðHx½nŠ þ n½nŠÞ À d½nŠ ¼
NB XÈ n¼1

n¼1

g2 xH ½nŠHH Hx½nŠ

À gdH ½nŠAH Hx½nŠ þ g2 trðRn Þ É ÀgxH ½nŠHH Ad½nŠ þ dH ½nŠd½nŠ . Now the optimizing problem reads as È É p½nŠ; x½nŠ; g ¼ arg min ðp½nŠ; x½nŠ; gÞ s:t:
NB X n¼1

ð6Þ

Proof. : see Appendix A. On comparing the above results with the Tx MMSE VP [7], we can see if we set A ¼ I, the above joint Tx–Rx design turns into the Tx MMSE VP. Therefore, our joint Tx–Rx MMSE VP generalizes the Tx MMSE VP. Furthermore, if the goal is to minimize the power control factor g, it turns into the regularized VP discussed in [4,5], which is obviously inferior to the MMSE design. 3.2. Specifications of the general solution In the former subsection, the matrix A at the receiver can be any unitary. Thus, it gives a general form of the joint Tx–Rx MMSE VP with a unitary matrix at the receiver. However, it is difficult to determine the optimal unitary matrix A. Here we specify the general form by some existing methods for extra performance improvement. We consider

xH ½nŠx½nŠ ¼ PT .

ð7Þ

Theorem 1. The solution of the problem (7) is given by  2 popt ½nŠ ¼ arg min LAðs½nŠ þ p½nŠÞ ,
p½nŠ2aZM R

n ¼ 1; 2; Á Á Á ; N B ,

ð8Þ

ARTICLE IN PRESS
2826 F. Liu et al. / Signal Processing 87 (2007) 2823–2833

the SVD, QRD, and GMD [8] methods. These methods decompose the channel H into the following general form: H ¼ QRPH , (12)

3.3. Improved joint Tx– Rx MMSE VP with the extended channel The specification schemes in the previous subsection is based on the SVD/QRD/GMD methods of channel H. From the literature, e.g. [9], we know using the extended channel He 9½H sn =ss IŠ for precoding can further improve the performance. Here, we develop an improved version of joint Tx–Rx MMSE VP based on the extended channel. Now the mentioned methods decompose the extended channel He as He ¼ Qe Re PH . e (19) The following steps are done as in subsection 3.2 with Q, R, P replaced by Qe, Re, Pe. We note that since He has a dimension expansion, dimension reduction is needed for correct matrix computation. Thus, only the proper upper-left parts of Qe, Re, Pe are used in the improved joint Tx–Rx MMSE VP schemes. 3.4. Performance analysis For the specifications with SVD, QRD, and GMD methods, we provide some brief discussion. The SVD method gives a diagonal matrix R, while the QRD and GMD methods give a triangular matrix R. Since the sphere encoding considers interference cancellation to find the optimal perturbation vector, we know from Eq. (18) that the sphere encoding cannot benefit from a diagonal channel B. Therefore, the QRD and GMD specifications obviously outperform the SVD specification. Moreover, the GMD method gives a triangular matrix with equal diagonal elements, which eliminates the imbalance among the subchannel gains. Thus, the GMD specification is superior to the QRD specification. The authors of [8] propose two schemes (named GMD and UCD) based on the GMD method for MIMO systems [10,11]. In fact, the GMD scheme [10] is a ZF THP based on the GMD of channel H, while the UCD scheme [11] is a MMSE THP with waterfilling power allocation based on the GMD of the extended channel He. In [11], the authors prove that the GMD scheme has a diversity of order d GMD ¼ ðM À m þ 1Þm and the UCD scheme has a diversity of order d UCD ¼ Mm, where M ¼ maxðM R ; M T Þ and m ¼ minðM R ; M T Þ. The authors also point out that the water filling power allocation does not help improve diversity gains. Therefore, we can expect our joint Tx–Rx MMSE VP with GMD has equal diversity order as that of the GMD scheme and the

where Q and P are unitary matrices. For the SVD method, R is a real diagonal matrix with singular values of H. For the QRD method, P ¼ I, and R is an upper triangular matrix. For the GMD method, R is a real upper triangular matrix with diagonal elements all equal to the geometric mean of the positive singular values of H. We note the Tx MMSE VP can be viewed as a special case of the above general form where Q ¼ I, R ¼ RH , and 0 P ¼ Q0 using the QRD: HH ¼ Q0 R0 . We choose the unitary matrix A ¼ Q to partially equalize the channel. Now, the joint Tx–Rx MMSE VP can be specified as x½nŠ ¼ gÀ1 PðRH R þ xIÞÀ1 RH d½nŠ ¼ gÀ1 PRH ðRRH þ xIÞÀ1 d½nŠ; n ¼ 1; 2; Á Á Á ; N B , ð13Þ
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi u NB u1 X g¼t dH ½nŠðRRH þ xIÞÀ1 RRH ðRRH þ xIÞÀ1 d½nŠ PT n¼1

vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ffi u NB u 1 X 2 RH ðRRH þ xIÞÀ1 d½nŠ , ¼t PT n¼1
NB X n¼1

ð14Þ 

¼x

dH ½nŠðRRH þ xIÞÀ1 d½nŠ.

(15)

By the Cholesky factorization ðRRH þ xIÞÀ1 ¼ BH B we can further simplify Eq. (15) as ¼x
NB X n¼1

(16)

dH ½nŠBH Bd½nŠ ¼ x

NB X  Bðs½nŠ þ p½nŠÞ2 . n¼1

(17) In order to minimize the total MSE, each independent item in Eq. (17) needs to be minimized. Now the optimal perturbation vector is chosen by  2 popt ½nŠ ¼ arg min Bðs½nŠ þ p½nŠÞ ; n ¼ 1; 2; Á Á Á ; N B ,
p½nŠ2aZM R

(18) which can be resolved by the closest-point search algorithm (sphere encoding).

ARTICLE IN PRESS
F. Liu et al. / Signal Processing 87 (2007) 2823–2833 2827

improved joint Tx–Rx MMSE VP with GMD has the same diversity order as that of the UCD scheme. Since the exact performance is difficult to analyze, we will use computer simulations to compare these schemes in the next section. 3.5. Further remarks In [12], the authors propose a joint precoding matrix and perturbation vector design. From (12), we know that it can be regarded as a special case of our design. Let Q ¼ I and the QRD: HH ¼ Q0R0, similar processing can be done. The difference is the optimization of [12] includes the QRD-M algorithm. Compared with [12], our design even does not constrain the precoding matrix to be linear, although the linear structure is proved optimal. We point out the QRD-M algorithm discussed in [12] can be further considered in our design to reduce the complexity of the sphere encoding, which is not the focus of this paper. 4. Simulation results The performance is measured in terms of the uncoded bit error rate (BER) over the equivalent

received SNR which is defined as: E b =N 0 ¼ M R s2 =Rm s2 , where Rm is the modulation rate (i.e. s n bits per modulated symbol). 4.1. Performance comparison for the different specification schemes We show the performance of the different specifications based on different methods in Figs. 2 and 3 for a 2-by-2 MIMO system with 4-QAM and 16-QAM, respectively. We see that the specifications with SVD and QRD methods perform worse than the Tx MMSE VP. The specification with GMD method significantly outperforms the Tx MMSE VP. In detail, there is about 2 and 3 dB SNR gain for the Tx–Rx MMSE VP by GMD in comparison with the Tx MMSE VP at BER ¼ 10À5 for 4-QAM and 16-QAM, respectively. We attribute this to the property of GMD method, which eliminates the imbalance between the gains of subchannels. By using the extended channel, the improved Tx–Rx MMSE VP by GMD has further processing gain of about 4 dB compared with the Tx MMSE VP. Therefore, we only consider the specification with GMD in the following simulation.

100 10-1

10-2 10-3 BER 10-4 Tx MMSE VP Tx-Rx MMSE VP by GMD Improved Tx-Rx MMSE VP by GMD Tx-Rx MMSE VP by SVD Improved Tx-Rx MMSE VP by SVD Tx-Rx MMSE VP by QRD Improved Tx-Rx MMSE VP by QRD 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Eb/N0 (dB) 18 20 22 24 26 28 10-5 10-6 10-7
Fig. 2. Average uncoded BER performance comparison for the specifications of the joint Tx–Rx MMSE VP with different methods using 4-QAM for (2,2) MIMO systems.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
2828 F. Liu et al. / Signal Processing 87 (2007) 2823–2833

100

10-1

10-2 BER

10-3 Tx MMSE VP Tx-Rx MMSE VP by GMD Improved Tx-Rx MMSE VP by GMD Tx-Rx MMSE VP by SVD Improved Tx-Rx MMSE VP by SVD 10-5 Tx-Rx MMSE VP by QRD Improved Tx-Rx MMSE VP by QRD
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Eb/N0 (dB) 20 22 24 26 28 30

10-4

Fig. 3. Average uncoded BER performance comparison for the specifications of the joint Tx–Rx MMSE VP with different methods using 16-QAM for (2,2) MIMO systems.

4.2. The performance comparison for the GMDbased schemes In this subsection, we compare the performance of the GMD-based schemes, including the GMD, UCD, the joint Tx–Rx MMSE VP by GMD, and the improved joint Tx–Rx MMSE VP by GMD. We also provide the Tx ZF VP in [5] and Tx MMSE VP [7] for comparison. Since the Tx regularized VP [5] is inferior to the Tx MMSE VP, we omit it in our simulation. Figs. 4 and 5 show the performance comparison for a 2-by-2 MIMO system with 4-QAM and 16-QAM, respectively. We see the GMD scheme only outperforms the Tx ZF VP, while the UCD scheme is superior to all others. The joint Tx–Rx MMSE VP by GMD significantly outperforms the GMD scheme. Compared with the UCD scheme, the improved joint Tx–Rx MMSE VP by GMD shows little performance loss. As analyzed in the above section, our joint Tx–Rx MMSE VP design does not consider power allocation, which leads to some performance loss in comparison with the UCD scheme. We give more simulation data to compare the related schemes. In Figs. 6 and 7, the performance is

compared for a 3-by-3 MIMO system with 4-QAM and 16-QAM, respectively. Similar results hold as the 2-by-2 MIMO systems. We see the specification with GMD still outperforms the Tx MMSE VP. The improved joint Tx–Rx MMSE VP by GMD has about 2 dB SNR gain compared with the Tx MMSE VP. Furthermore, the slopes of these curves in high SNR region indicating the diversity order verify our analysis about the diversity order. From Figs. 4–7, we see the diversity orders of the GMD and joint Tx–Rx MMSE VP with GMD schemes are equal, while the UCD and improved joint Tx–Rx MMSE VP by GMD schemes share the same diversity order. Moreover, the Tx MMSE VP shows the same diversity order as the GMD, while the Tx ZF VP obtains low diversity order. 4.3. Explanation for the performance improvement of the GMD-based schemes The performance of VP schemes is difficult to analyze theoretically. In this subsection, we try to explain the performance improvement of the proposed GMD-based VP schemes by simulation. As mentioned before, the GMD method eliminates

ARTICLE IN PRESS
F. Liu et al. / Signal Processing 87 (2007) 2823–2833 2829

100 10-1

10-2 10-3 BER 10-4
GMD UCD Tx ZF VP Tx MMSE VP Tx-Rx MMSE VP by GMD Improved Tx-Rx MMSE VP by GMD 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Eb/N0 (dB) 18 20 22 24 26 28

10-5 10-6

10-7

Fig. 4. Average uncoded BER performance comparison for different schemes using 4-QAM for (2,2) MIMO systems.

100 10-1

10-2

10-3 BER 10-4
GMD UCD Tx ZF VP Tx MMSE VP Tx-Rx MMSE VP by GMD Improved Tx-Rx MMSE VP by GMD 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Eb/N0 (dB) 20 22 24 26 28 30

10-5

10-6

10-7

Fig. 5. Average uncoded BER performance comparison for different schemes using 16-QAM for (2,2) MIMO systems.

the difference of subchannel gains, which affects the searching of the perturbation vectors. Looking at the triangular matrices used in Eqs. (8) and (18) for

sphere encoding, we find that the difference of the diagonal elements of this triangular matrix plays an important role in searching the perturbation

ARTICLE IN PRESS
2830 F. Liu et al. / Signal Processing 87 (2007) 2823–2833

100 10-1
GMD UCD Tx ZF VP Tx MMSE VP Tx-Rx MMSE VP by GMD Improved Tx-Rx MMSE VP by GMD

10-2

10-3 BER 10-4 10-5 10-6
0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14 16 18 Eb/N0 (dB)

20

22

24

26

28

30

Fig. 6. Average uncoded BER performance comparison for different schemes using 4-QAM for (3,3) MIMO systems.

100

10-1

10-2 10-3 BER 10-4
GMD UCD Tx ZF VP Tx MMSE VP Tx-Rx MMSE VP by GMD Improved Tx-Rx MMSE VP by GMD 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 Eb/N0 (dB) 20 22 24 26 28 30

10-5

10-6 10-7

Fig. 7. Average uncoded BER performance comparison for different schemes using 16-QAM for (3,3) MIMO systems.

vectors. With computer simulation, we can see it explicitly. Fig. 8 shows the average variance of the diagonal elements of the triangular matrix used for sphere encoding with 4-QAM, where A, B, and C

represent the Tx MMSE VP, the Tx–Rx MMSE VP by GMD, and the improved Tx–Rx MMSE VP by GMD, respectively. We compare the (2,2), (5,5), and (10,10) MIMO systems. From the left part of

ARTICLE IN PRESS
F. Liu et al. / Signal Processing 87 (2007) 2823–2833 2831

1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 Variance 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 A. (2,2) B. (2,2) C. (2,2) A. (5,5) B. (5,5) C. (5,5) Variance 30 A. (10,10) B. (10,10) C. (10,10)

101

100

10-1

10-2

10-3

10-4 0.2 0 0 10 20 Eb/N0 (dB) 10-5 0 10 20 Eb/N0 (dB) 30

Fig. 8. Comparison of average variance of the diagonal elements of the triangular matrix used for sphere encoding with 4-QAM. A represents the Tx MMSE VP scheme, B represents the Tx–Rx MMSE VP by GMD scheme, and C represents the improved Tx–Rx MMSE VP by GMD scheme. (2,2), (5,5), and (10,10) MIMO systems are considered. Left: linear Y-axis; right: logarithmic Y-axis.

Fig. 8 (using linear scale for Y-axis) we can see that the average variance of Tx MMSE VP significantly increases with the SNR, while the GMD-based VP schemes keep a very low level of average variance. Bigger variance means higher imbalance among the diagonal elements. This helps explain why the GMD-based VP schemes significantly outperform the Tx MMSE VP in high SNR region. However, if the antenna number increases, the average variance of Tx MMSE VP reduces. This can explain why the performance improvement of the GMD-based VP schemes decreases as the number of antennas increases compared with the Tx MMSE VP. Furthermore, we change the Y-axis into logarithmic scale to see it in detail as the right part of Fig. 8. We find that the average variance of the improved Tx–Rx MMSE VP by GMD is the smallest among the three schemes, which explains why the improved Tx–Rx MMSE VP by GMD has a superior performance. 5. Conclusion We presented the joint transmitter and receiver design of VP with MMSE criterion for MIMO

systems, while the receiver is multiplied with a unitary matrix. This joint Tx–Rx VP MMSE design generalizes the transmitter side MMSE VP. We deduced a closed-form solution with any unitary matrix at the receiver. Then we used several methods to specify the general solution. We found the specification with GMD method improves the performance due to the elimination of gain imbalance among subchannels of MIMO systems in comparison with the Tx MMSE VP. Moreover, we exploited the extended channel to obtain an improved version of the joint Tx–Rx MMSE VP. The improved joint Tx–Rx MMSE VP with GMD achieves further diversity gain and processing gain. Although our design still has little performance loss compared with the UCD scheme, it significantly outperforms the Tx MMSE VP. The simulation results verified our design and analysis.

Acknowledgment The authors are grateful to the anonymous reviewers for their helpful suggestions for improving the submitted manuscript.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
2832 F. Liu et al. / Signal Processing 87 (2007) 2823–2833

Appendix A. Proof of Theorem 1: Proof. We use the Lagrangian multiplier method to solve the question. The cost function is Lðp½nŠ; x½nŠ; g; lÞ ¼ ðp½nŠ; x½nŠ; gÞ þl
NB X n¼1

From Eq. (24) we prove that the optimal relationship between x[n] and d[n] is linear. Bring Eq. (25) into Eq. (22):
NB X& n¼1

! ð20Þ

l À2 xH ½nŠx½nŠ þ 2g trðRn Þ g

' ¼ 0. (26)

xH ½nŠx½nŠ À PT ,

Then we get l N B Á trðRn Þ N B Á trðRn Þ ¼ N 9x. ¼ B g2 P H PT x ½nŠx½nŠ
n¼1

where l is the Lagrangian multiplier to be determined. By setting the derivatives of Lðp½nŠ; x½nŠ; g; lÞ to zeros with respect to x[n], g, and l, respectively, we get qL ¼ 0 ) g2 xH ½nŠHH H À gdH ½nŠAH H þ lxH ½nŠ ¼ 0, qx½nŠ (21)
NB XÈ qL ¼0) 2gxH ½nŠHH Hx½nŠ À dH ½nŠAH Hx½nŠ qg n¼1 É þ2g trðRn Þ À xH ½nŠHH Ad½nŠ ¼ 0, ð22Þ NB X qL ¼0) xH ½nŠx½nŠ À PT ¼ 0. ql n¼1

(27)

Thus Eq. (24) can be written as x½nŠ ¼ gÀ1 ðHH H þ xIÞÀ1 HH Ad½nŠ ¼ gÀ1 HH ðHHH þ xIÞÀ1 Ad½nŠ. Now by taking Eq. (28) into Eq. (23), we get
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi u NB u1 X g¼t dH ½nŠAH HðHHH þ xIÞÀ2 HH Ad½nŠ PT n¼1

ð28Þ

(23)

Rearrange Eq. (21) to obtain   l À1 H x½nŠ ¼ gÀ1 HH H þ 2 I H Ad½nŠ g   l À1 À1 H H ¼ g H HH þ 2 I Ad½nŠ, g

¼

vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi u NB u1 X t dH ½nŠAH ðHHH þ xIÞÀ1 HHH ðHHH þ xIÞÀ1 Ad½nŠ. PT n¼1

ð29Þ ð24Þ With Eqs. (28) and (29), the MSE expression (6) can be computed 9 > > = > > ; 

¼

NB < X>

8 H À1 À1 H H H H H H > d ½nŠA ðHH þ xIÞ HH HH ðHH þ xIÞ Ad½nŠ þ d ½nŠd½nŠ ÀdH ½nŠAH HHH ðHHH þ xIÞÀ1 Ad½nŠ À dH ½nŠAH ðHHH þ xIÞÀ1 HHH Ad½nŠ

þxdH ½nŠAH ðHHH þ xIÞÀ1 HHH ðHHH þ xIÞÀ1 Ad½nŠ 9 8 À Á > ðHHH þ xIÞÀ1 HHH HHH HHH þ xI À1 þ I > > > > > NB = < X H H À1 À1 H H H H Ad½nŠ ¼ d ½nŠA ÀHH ðHH þ xIÞ À ðHH þ xIÞ HH > > > > n¼1 > > ; : þxðHHH þ xIÞÀ1 HHH ðHHH þ xIÞÀ1 ¼x and l gxH ½nŠHH Hx½nŠ À dH ½nŠAH Hx½nŠ þ xH ½nŠx½nŠ ¼ 0, g l gxH ½nŠHH Hx½nŠ À xH ½nŠHH Ad½nŠ þ xH ½nŠx½nŠ ¼ 0. g ð25Þ
NB X n¼1

> n¼1 > :

dH ½nŠAH ðHHH þ xIÞÀ1 Ad½nŠ, where the last step uses the fact ðHHH þ xIÞÀ1 HHH HHH ðHHH þ xIÞÀ1 À I þ I À HHH ðHHH þ xIÞÀ1 þ I À ðHHH þ xIÞÀ1 HHH

ð30Þ

ARTICLE IN PRESS
F. Liu et al. / Signal Processing 87 (2007) 2823–2833 2833

þ xðHHH þ xIÞÀ1 HHH ðHHH þ xIÞÀ1 ¼ ðHHH þ xIÞÀ1 HHH HHH ðHHH þ xIÞÀ1 À I þ 2xðHHH þ xIÞÀ1 þ xðHHH þ xIÞÀ1 HHH ðHHH þ xIÞÀ1 Â ¼ ðHHH þ xIÞÀ1 HHH HHH Ã ÀðHHH þ xIÞ þ 2xI ðHHH þ xIÞÀ1 þ xðHHH þ xIÞÀ1 HHH ðHHH þ xIÞÀ1 ÈÂ Ã É ¼ ðHHH þ xIÞÀ1 HHH À I HHH þ xI Â ðHHH þ xIÞÀ1 þ xðHHH þ xIÞÀ1 Â HHH ðHHH þ xIÞÀ1 È É ¼ x ÀðHHH þ xIÞÀ1 HHH þ I ðHHH þ xIÞÀ1 þ xðHHH þ xIÞÀ1 HHH ðHHH þ xIÞÀ1 ¼ xðHHH þ xIÞÀ1 , ð31Þ

References
[1] I.E. Teletar, Capacity of multi-antenna Gaussian channels, AT&T Bell Labs Internal Tech. Memo, June 1995. [2] A.J. Goldsmith, S.A. Jafar, N. Jindal, S. Vishwanath, Capacity limits of MIMO channels, IEEE J. Select. Areas Comm. 21 (June 2003) 684–702. [3] P. Viswanath, D. Tse, Sum capacity of the vector Gaussian broadcast and uplink–downlink duality, IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory (August 2003) 1912–1921. [4] C.B. Peel, B.M. Hochwald, A.L. Swindlehurst, A vectorperturbation technique for near-capacity multiantenna multiuser communication-part I: channel inversion and regularization, IEEE Trans. Comm. 53 (1) (January 2005) 195–202. [5] B.M. Hochwald, C.B. PEEL, A.L. Swindlehurst, A vectorperturbation technique for near-capacity multiantenna multiuser communication-part II: perturbation, IEEE Trans. Comm. 53 (3) (March 2005) 537–544. [6] M. Tomlinson, New automatic equaliser employing modulo arithmetic, Electron. Lett. 7 (March 1971) 138–139. [7] D. Schmidt, M. Joham, W. Utschick, Minimum mean square error vector precoding, in: Proceedings of PIMRC 2005, September 2005, pp. 107–111. [8] Y. Jiang, W.W. Hager, J. Li, The Geometric Mean Decomposition, Linear Algebra and Its Applications, February 2005, pp. 373–384. [9] D. Wubben, R. Bohnke, V. Kuhn, K.D. Kammeyer, MMSE extension of V-BLAST based on sorted QR decomposition, in: Proceedings of IEEE VTC2003-Fall, vol. 1, Orlando, FL, USA, October 6–9, 2003, pp. 508–512. [10] Y. Jiang, J. Li, W.W. Hager, Joint transceiver design for MIMO communications using geometric mean decomposition, IEEE Trans. Signal Processing 53 (10, part. 1) (October 2005) 3791–3803. [11] Y. Jiang, J. Li, W.W. Hager, Uniform channel decomposition for MIMO communications, IEEE Trans. Signal Processing 53 (November 2005) 4283–4294. [12] J. Zhang, K.J. Kim, Near-capacity MIMO multiuser precoding with QRD-M algorithm, in: Proceedings of the 36th Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems and Computers, 2005, pp. 1498–1502.

where the matrix inversion lemma is applied for. Then we use the Cholesky factorization ðHHH þ xIÞÀ1 ¼ LH L, (32)

so that the MSE expression (30) can be further simplified: ¼x
NB X n¼1 NB X  LAðs½nŠ þ p½nŠÞ2 . ¼x n¼1

dH ½nŠAH LH LAd½nŠ ð33Þ

From Eq. (33), the optimal perturbation vector minimizing the MSE can be effectively found by the closest-point search algorithm (sphere encoding) as  2 popt ½nŠ ¼ arg min LAðs½nŠ þ p½nŠÞ ,
p½nŠ2aZM R

n ¼ 1; 2; Á Á Á ; N B . Thus, we complete the proof. &

ð34Þ

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful