Enhancing capacity of wireless
cellular CDMA
Timo O. Korhonen, Helsinki University of Technology 2
Topics Today
s
Dealing without multiuser reception:
asynchronous CDMA
x
SNR
x
power balance  nearfar effect
s
Multiuser detection (MUD) classification and properties
x
The conventional detector (nonMUD, denotations)
x
Maximum likelihood sequence detection
x
Linear detectors
3
Decorrelating detector
3
Minimum meansquare error detector
3
Polynomial expansion detector
x
Subtractive interference cancellation
3
Serial and parallel cancellation techniques
Timo O. Korhonen, Helsinki University of Technology 3
s
The j:th user experiences the SNR:
signal
voltage
ISI & noise voltage
{ ¦
2 2
2 2 2
2
, , ,
0
2
jj jj
j
ij j ij ij j j
i j i j i j
m m
SNR
m n m m n n
→
≤ ·
¹ ¹ ¹ ¹ ¹ ¹
] ] ]
¹ ¹ ¹ ¹ ¹ ¹
+ + +
' ' ' ' ' '
] ] ]
] ] ]
¹ ¹ ¹ ¹ ¹ ¹
¹ ¹ ¹ ¹ ¹ ¹
∑ ∑ ∑
E E E E
1 4 4 2 4 4 3
MAI
channel noise
signal power for the j:th user
voltage at the I&D*
at the decision instant
Asynchronous
CDMA
i j ≠
1
ˆ ( )
U
j m jj ij j
i
i j
m t m m n
·
≠
· + +
∑
ˆ ( )
j m
m t
( )
j
v t
( ) 2
U U
s t P
2 2
( ) 2 s t P
1 1
( ) 2 s t P
*Integrate and dump receiver
i j ≠
Timo O. Korhonen, Helsinki University of Technology 4
Practical CDMA receiver
s
Hence, SNR upper bound for the j:th user is
0
1
c j
j U
i eff
i
i j
L P
SNR
P N B
·
≠
≤
+
∑
1
U
i
i
i j
P
·
≠
∑
{ ¦
2
2 2
2
, ,
0
2
jj
j
ij ij j j
i j i j
m
SNR
m m n n
→
≤
¹ ¹ ¹ ¹
] ]
¹ ¹ ¹ ¹
+ +
' ' ' '
] ]
] ]
¹ ¹ ¹ ¹
¹ ¹ ¹ ¹
∑ ∑
E E E
1 4 4 2 4 4 3
0 eff N
N B P ·
/
c j j
L P WP R ·
0
( )
m
t
u t
∫
LPF
local code
from channel
decision
phasing of
sampling
2
0
2
0
( )
( )
eff
V f df
B
V f df
∞
∞
]
]
]
·
∫
∫
f
N
B
0
S
( )
2
0
2
0
N
eff N
N
B S
B B
B S
· ·
Effective BW
is defined by:
for rectangular
spectra:
( ) V f
Timo O. Korhonen, Helsinki University of Technology 5
Perfect power control
s
Equal received powers for U users means that
s
Therefore the j:th user’s SNR equals
and the number of users is
s
where* (for BPSK)
s
Number of users is
limited by
x channel AWGN level N
0
x processing gain L
c
x received power P
r
1
1 1
1
c
o
U L
SNR SNR
¹ ¹
≤ + −
' '
¹ ¹
1
max
1 0
1 1
lim 1 1
c
c
SNR
o
L
U L
SNR SNR SNR
→∞
]
¹ ¹
≤ + − · +
' ' ]
¹ ¹
]
0
/ 2 SNR
E
b
/N
o
(=SNR
1
/2)
1
0
2
j j
b
c
eff N o
P PW
E
SNR L
B N P R N
· · ·
0
0
( )
( 1)
c j
eff j
L P
SNR
N B U P
≤
+ −
AWGN level decreases
max
U
*SNR
1
: received SNR without multiple access interference
1 ( 1)
U
i
i i j
i j
P P U P ·
≠
· · −
∑
Timo O. Korhonen, Helsinki University of Technology 6
Unequal received powers  the
nearfar effect
s
Assume all users apply the same power but their distance to the
receiving node is different. Hence the power from the i:th node is
where d is the distance, and α is the propagation attenuation
coefficient (α = 2 for free space, in urban area α = 3…5 )
s
Express the power ratio of the i:th and j:th user at the common
reception point
s
Therefore, the SNR of the j:th user is
0
/
i i
P P d
α
·
j
o i i j j i j
i
d
P Pd P d P P
d
α
α α
 `
· · ⇒ ·
. ,
0
0
1
1
c j c j
j j U
U
j
eff i
eff j
i
i
i
i j
i j
L P L P
SNR SNR
d
N B P
N B P
d
α
·
·
≠
≠
≤ ⇒ ≤
 `
+
+
. ,
∑
∑
Timo O. Korhonen, Helsinki University of Technology 7
The nearfar effect in asynchronous
CDMA
s
Grouping the previous yields condition
s
Multipleaccess interference (MAI) power should not be larger
than what the receiver sensitivity can accommodate
s
Note the manifestation of nearfar effect because just one larger
sum term on the left side of the equation voids it
s
Example: Assume that all but one transmitter have the same
distance to the receiving node. The one transmitter has the
distance d
1
=d
j
/2.5 and α =3.68, SNR
0
=14, SNR
1
=25,
R
b
= 30 kb/s, B
eff
= 20 MHz, then
3.68
1
(2.5) 2
U
j
i
i
i j
d
U
d
α
·
≠
]
· + − ⇒
]
]
∑
3.68
0 1
3.68
0 1
1 1
(2.5) 2
1 1
2 2.5 14
c
c
U L
SNR SNR
U L
SNR SNR
¹
]
+ − ≤ −
¹
]
¹ ]
'
]
¹
≤ − + − ·
]
¹
]
¹
1
0 1
1 1
1
U
j
c
i
i
i j
d
L U
d SNR SNR
α
·
≠
 ` ]
≤ − · −
]
. , ]
∑
,
(2/ ) /(1/ ) 2 / 2
c BPSK c b b c b eff
L T T T T T B · · ≈
Timo O. Korhonen, Helsinki University of Technology 8
s
By using the perfect power balance the number of users is
s
Hence the presence of a single user so near has dropped the
number of users into almost 1/3 part of the maximum number
s
If this user comes closer than
all the other users will be rejected, e.g. they can not communicate
in the system in the required SNR level. This illustrates the near
far effect
s
To minimize the nearfar effect efficient power control is should
be adaptively realized in asynchronous CDMAsystems
0 1
1 1
1 42
( ) ( )
c
U L
SNR SNR
]
· + − ·
]
]
1
/ 2.78
j
d d ≤
Timo O. Korhonen, Helsinki University of Technology 9
Fighting against Multiple
Access Interference
s
CDMA system can be realized by spreading codes having
low cross correlation as Gold codes (asynchronous
usage) or Walsh codes (synchronous usage)
s
Multipath channel with large delay spread can destroy
code crosscorrelation properties
x
a remedy: asynchronous systems with large code gain
assume other users to behave as Gaussian noise (as
just analyzed!)
s
Additional compensation of MAI yields further capacity
(increases receiver sensitivity). This can be achieved by
x
Code waveform design (BWrate/tradeoff)
x
Power control (minimizes nearfar effect)
x
FEC and ARQsystems
x
Diversitysystems:  Spatial  Frequency  Time
x
multiuser detection
Timo O. Korhonen, Helsinki University of Technology 10
x
Note that there exists a strong parallelism between the
problem of MAI and that of ISI:
x
Hence, a number of multiuser detectors have their
equalizer counter parts as:
3
maximum likelihood
3
zeroforcing
3
minimum mean square
3
decision feedback
x
General classification of multiuser detectors:
3
linear
3
subtractive
Asynchronous channel of Kusers behaves the same
way as a single user channel having ISI with *memory
depth of K1
MAI versus ISI (InterSymbolic
Interference)
*This could be generated for instance by a multipath
channel having K1 taps
Timo O. Korhonen, Helsinki University of Technology 11
Maximumlikelihood sequence
detection
s
Optimum multiuser detection applies maximumlikelihood principle:
s
The ML principle
x
has the optimum performance provided transmitted symbols
equal alike
x
has large computational complexity  In exhaustive search 2
NK
vectors to be considered! (K users, N bits)
x
requires estimation of received amplitudes and phases that takes
still more computational power
x
can be implemented by using Viterbidecoder that is ‘practically
optimum’ MLdetection scheme to reduce computational
complexity by surviving path selections
s
We discuss first the conventional detector (by following the
approach we already had to familiarize to denotations)
Considering the whole received sequence, find the
estimate for the received sequence that has the
minimum distance to the allowed sequences
Timo O. Korhonen, Helsinki University of Technology 12
Formulation: Received signal
s
Assume
x
single path AWGN channel
x
perfect carrier synchronization
x
BPSK modulation
s
Received signal is therefore
where for K users
s
Note that there are L
c
chips/bit (L
c
: processing gain)
1
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
K
k k k
k
r t A t g t d t n t
·
∑
· +
( )
k
A t
is the amplitude
( )
k
g t
is the spreading code waveform
( )
k
d t
is the data modulation of the k:th user
( ) n t
is the AWGN with N
0
/2 PSD
Timo O. Korhonen, Helsinki University of Technology 13
Conventional detection
(without MUD)
for multiple access
s
The conventional DS receiver for K users consists of K
matched filters or correlators:
s
Each user is detected without considering background
noise (generated by the spreading codes of the other
users) to be deterministic (Assumed to be genuine
AWGN)
decision
0
( )
b
T
x t dx
∫
1
( ) g t
decision
0
( )
b
T
x t dx
∫
2
( ) g t
decision
0
( )
b
T
x t dx
∫
( )
K
g t
M
M
M
M
1
ˆ
d
2
ˆ
d
ˆ
K
d
( ) r t
Timo O. Korhonen, Helsinki University of Technology 14
Output for the K:th user
without MUD
s
Detection quality depends on code cross and autocorrelation
s
Hence we require a large autocorrelation and small
crosscorrelation (small ISI)
s
The output for the K:th user consist of the signal, MAI and
filtered Gaussian noise terms (as discussed earlier)
s
Received SNR of this was considered earlier in this lecture
,
1
( ) ( )
b
i k i k
T b
g t g t dt
T
ρ ·
∫
,
,
1,
0 1,
i k
i k
i k
i k
ρ
ρ
· ·
¹
'
≤ ≤ ≠
¹
1
,
1
( ) ( )
1
( ) ( )
b
b
k k
T
b
K
i
k k k i k i i k
T
i k
b
k k k k k
y r t g t dt
T
y A d Ad n t g t dt
T
y A d MAI z
ρ
·
≠
·
· + +
· + +
∫
∑
∫
Timo O. Korhonen, Helsinki University of Technology 15
Matrix notations to consider
detection for multiple access
s
Assume a three user synchronous system with
a matched filter receiver
that is expressed by the matrixvector notation as
1 2,1 2 2 3,1 3 3 1
2 1,2 1 1 3,2 3 3 2
3 1
1
,3 1 1 2,3 2 2 3
1
2 2
3 3
Ad
A
y A d A d z
y Ad A d z
y A d d z
d
A d A
ρ ρ
ρ ρ
ρ ρ
· + + + ¹
¹
· + + +
'
¹
· + + +
¹
1 2,1 3,1 1 1 1
2 1,2 3,2 2 2 2
3 1,3 2,3 3 3 3
1 0 0
1 0 0
1 0 0
y A d z
y A d z
y A d z
ρ ρ
ρ ρ
ρ ρ
]
] ] ] ]
]
] ] ] ]
· +
]
] ] ] ]
]
] ] ] ]
] ] ] ]
]
· + y RAd z
data
noise
matched filter outputs
received amplitudes correlations between
each pair of codes
Timo O. Korhonen, Helsinki University of Technology 16
The dataterm and the MAI
term
s
Matrix R can be partitioned into two parts by setting
Note that hence Q contains offdiagonal elements or R (or the
crosscorrelations)
s
and therefore MF outputs can be expressed as
s
Therefore the term Ad contains the decoupled data and QAd
represents the MAI
s
Objective of all MUD schemes is to cancel out the MAIterm as
effectively as possible (constraints to hardware/software
complexity and computational efficiency)
· + y RAd z
· + R I Q
( ) · + + · + + y I Q Ad z d QAd A z
· + y RAd z with
Timo O. Korhonen, Helsinki University of Technology 17
Asynchronous and
synchronous channel
s
In synchronous detection decisions can be made bitbybit
s
In asynchronous detection bits overlap and multiuser detection is based on taking all the
bits into account
s
The matrix R contains now partial correlations that exist between every pair of the NK code
words (K users, N bits)
1
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
K
k k k k
k
r t A t g t d t n t τ
·
· − +
∑
4
3
6
5
2
1 User 1
User 2
1
τ
1 b
T τ +
1
3
b
T τ +
4
3
6
5
2
1
User 1
User 2
1
τ
2
τ
1 b
T τ +
2
3
b
T τ +
asynchronous ch. synchronous ch.
Timo O. Korhonen, Helsinki University of Technology 18
Asynchronous channel
correlation matrix
s
In this example the correlation matrix extends to 6x6
dimension:
s
Note that the resulting matrix is sparse because most of the
bits do not overlap
s
Sparse matrix  algorithms can be utilized to reduce
computational difficulties (memory size & computational time)
· + y RAd z
2,1
1,2 3,2
2,3 4,3
3,4 5,4
4,5 6,5
5,6
1 0 0 0 0
1 0 0 0
0 1 0 0
0 0 1 0
0 0 0 1
0 0 0 0 1
ρ
ρ ρ
ρ ρ
ρ ρ
ρ ρ
ρ
]
]
]
]
·
]
]
]
]
]
]
R
Timo O. Korhonen, Helsinki University of Technology 19
Decorrelating detector
s
The decorrelating detector applies the inverse of the
correlation matrix to suppress MAI
and the data estimate is therefore
s
We note that the decorrelating detector eliminates
the MAI completely!
s
However, channel noise is filtered by the inverse of
correlation matrix  This results in noise enhancement!
s
Decorrelating detector is mathematically similar to zero
forcing equalizer as applied to compensate ISI
1
dec
−
· L R
1
1
1
( )
dec
dec
−
−
−
·
· + +
· + · +
RAd
d R y
R z
Ad R z Ad z
A A Q d d
1 42 43
Timo O. Korhonen, Helsinki University of Technology 20
Decorrelating detector
properties summarized
s
PROS:
s
Provides substantial performance improvement over
conventional detector under most conditions
s
Does not need received amplitude estimation
s
Has computational complexity substantially lower that the
ML detector (linear with respect of number of users)
s
Corresponds ML detection when the energies of the users
are not know at the receiver
s
Has probability of error independent of the signal energies
s
CONS:
s
Noise enhancement
s
High computational complexity in inverting matrix R
Timo O. Korhonen, Helsinki University of Technology 21
Polynomial expansion (PE)
detector
s
Many MUD techniques require inversion of R. This can be
obtained efficiently by PE
s
For finite length message a finite length PE series can
synthesize R
1
exactly. However, in practice a truncated
series must be used for continuous signaling
1
0
S
N
i
PE i
i
w
−
·
· ≈
∑
L R R
PE PE
y · d L
Weight
multiplication
R
Weight
multiplication
R
y
y R
Weight
multiplication
2
y R
matched
filter
bank
( ) r t
PE PE
y · d L
y
y R
2
y R
R
0
w ×
1
w ×
2
w ×
0 1
0 1
0
ˆ
...
S
S
S
N
N i
PE i N
i
w y w y w y w y
·
· · + +
∑
d R R R R
Timo O. Korhonen, Helsinki University of Technology 22
Mathcadexample
1
0
S
N
i
i
i
w
−
·
·
∑
R R
i
w ·
2
· R
1 −
· R
= series expansion
of R
1
(to 2. degree)
Timo O. Korhonen, Helsinki University of Technology 23
Minimum meansquare error
(MMSE) detector
s
Based on solving MMSE optimization problem with
that should be minimized
s
This leads into the solution
s
One notes that under high SNR this solution is the same as
decorrelating receiver
s
This multiuser technique is equal to MMSE linear equalizer
used to combat ISI
s
PROS: Provides improved noise behavior with respect of
decorrelating detector
s
CONS:
x
Requires estimation of received amplitudes and
noise level
x
Performance depends also on powers of
interfering users
2
E[ ] − d Ly
1
2
0
( / 2)
MMSE
N
−
−
· · + ]
]
d L y R A y
Timo O. Korhonen, Helsinki University of Technology 24
Successive interference
cancellation (SIC)
1
( )
b
A t T −
1 1
( )
b
g t T τ − −
1
( )
b
s t T −
( )
b
r t T −
MF
user 1
decision
b
T
( ) r t
1
( ) r t
1
d
+

s
Each stage detects, regenerates and cancels out a user
s
First the strongest user is cancelled because
x
it is easiest to synchronize and demodulate
x
this gives the highest benefit for canceling out the
other users
s
Note that the strongest user has therefore no use for this
MAI canceling scheme!
s
PROS: Small HW requirements and large performance
improvement when compared to conventional detector
s
CONS: Processing delay, signal reordered if their powers
changes, in low SNR:s performance suddenly drops
T
o
t
h
e
n
e
x
t
s
t
a
g
e
1
d
Timo O. Korhonen, Helsinki University of Technology 25
Parallel interference
cancellation (PIC)
spreader
2
( )
b
A t T −
( )
K b
A t T −
1
( )
b
A t T −
1
( )
i
i
s t
≠
∑
2
( )
i
i
s t
≠
∑
( )
i
i K
s t
≠
∑

+


matched
filter
bank
decisions
and
stage
weights
( )
b
r t T −
1
(1) d
2
(1) d
(1)
K
d
1
(0) d
2
(0) d
(0)
K
d
amplitude
estimation
parallel
summer
1
( )
b
s t T −
2
( )
b
s t T −
( )
K b
s t T −
s
With equal weights for all stages the data estimates for
each stages are
s
Number of stages determined by required accuracy
(Stagebystage decisionvariance can be monitored)
( 1) ( )
( ( ))
m m
m
+ · −
· + − +
d y QAd
Ad QA d d z
· + + y Ad QAd z
initial
data
estimates
minimization tends to cancel MAI
( ) · + +
· + +
y I Q Ad z
d QAd A z
Timo O. Korhonen, Helsinki University of Technology 26
PIC properties
s
SIC performs better in nonpower controlled channels
s
PIC performs better in power balanced channels
s
Using decorrelating detector as the first stage
x
improving first estimates improves total performance
x
simplifies system analysis
s
Doing a partial MAI cancellation at each stage with the
amount of cancellation increasing for each successive
stage
x
tentative decisions of the earlier stages are less
reliable  hence they should have a lower weight
x
very large performance improvements have achieved
by this method
x
probably the most promising suboptimal MUD
P
I
C
v
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
s
Timo O. Korhonen, Helsinki University of Technology 27
Benefits and limitations of
multiuser detection
s
Significant capacity improvement  usually signals of the
own cell are included
s
More efficient uplink spectrum utilization  hence for
downlink a wider spectrum may be allocated
s
Reduced MAI and nearfar effect  reduced precision
requirements for power control
s
More efficient power utilization because nearfar effect
is reduced
s
If the neighboring cells are not included interference
cancellation efficiency is greatly reduced
s
Interference cancellation is very difficult to implement in
downlink reception where, however, larger capacity
requirements exist (DL traffic tends to be larger)
PROS:
CONS:
Topics Today
s
s
Dealing without multiuser reception: asynchronous CDMA x SNR x power balance  nearfar effect Multiuser detection (MUD) classification and properties x The conventional detector (nonMUD, denotations) x Maximum likelihood sequence detection x Linear detectors 3 Decorrelating detector 3 Minimum meansquare error detector 3 Polynomial expansion detector x Subtractive interference cancellation 3 Serial and parallel cancellation techniques
Timo O. Korhonen, Helsinki University of Technology
2
1 4 i . Helsinki University of Technology 3 . Korhonen. jj 2 = m2 jj 2 2 E ∑ mij + 2E ∑ mij nj + E { nj2 } ii≠j j .s1 (t ) 2 P 1 s2 (t ) 2 P2 Asynchronous CDMA voltage at the I&D* at the decision instant sU (t ) 2 P U ˆ m j (tm ) v j (t ) s ˆ m j (tm ) = m jj + ∑ mij + n j i =1 i≠ j U signal voltage ISI & noise voltage signal power for the j:th user The j:th user experiences the SNR: SNR j ≤ m2 jj E ∑ mij + n j i i≠. j2 4 43 4 →0 MAI channel noise *Integrate and dump receiver Timo O.
j i. SNR upper bound for the j:th user is SNR j ≤ ∑P + N B i =1 i≠ j i 0 U eff Timo O. Korhonen. j 1 4 4 2 4 4 3 N 0 Beff = PN →0 V(f ) BN S0 f ∑P i =1 i i≠ j s U Beff ( BN S0 ) = BN S02 Lc Pj 2 = BN Hence.Practical CDMA receiver from channel LPF ∫ tm 0 u (t ) decision phasing of sampling Effective BW is defined by: 2 local code Lc Pj = WPj / R ∞ V ( f )df ∫0 Beff = ∞ V 2 ( f )df ∫ 0 SNR j ≤ m 2 jj for rectangular spectra: 2 2 E ∑ mij + 2E ∑ mij n j + E{ n 2 } j i. Helsinki University of Technology 4 .
Perfect power control s Equal received powers for U users means that Therefore the j:th user’s SNR equals and the number of users is 1 1 U ≤ 1 + Lc − SNRo SNR1 where* (for BPSK) 2E SNR1 = Lc = = b Beff N Number of users 0is PN R No limited by x channel AWGN level N0 x x Pi = ∑ i =1 Pi = (U − 1) Pj U i≠ j s ( SNR )0 ≤ Lc Pj N 0 Beff + (U − 1) Pj s U max 1 1 Lc U max ≤ lim 1 + Lc − = 1+ SNR1 →∞ SNR0 SNRo SNR1 Pj PW j s processing gain Lc received power Pr SNR0 / 2 AWGN level decreases Eb/No (=SNR1/2) *SNR1: received SNR without multiple access interference Timo O. Helsinki University of Technology 5 . Korhonen.
Unequal received powers . Korhonen. Hence the power from the i:th node is Pi = P0 / d iα s where d is the distance.the nearfar effect s Assume all users apply the same power but their distance to the receiving node is different. Helsinki University of Technology 6 . and α is the propagation attenuation coefficient (α = 2 for free space. the SNR of the j:th user is SNR j ≤ Lc Pj N 0 Beff + ∑ Pi i =1 i≠ j U s ⇒ SNR j ≤ Lc Pj dj N 0 Beff + Pj ∑ i =1 d i U i≠ j α Timo O. in urban area α = 3…5 ) Express the power ratio of the i:th and j:th user at the common reception point α d Po = Pdiα = Pj d α ⇒ Pi = Pj j i j di Therefore.
then dj ∑ d = (2.53. SNR1=25.68 + U − 2 ⇒ i =1 i U i≠ j α Lc . SNR0=14. The one transmitter has the distance d1=dj /2. Helsinki University of Technology 1 1 (2.5 and α =3.68. Korhonen.68 + L 1 − 1 = 14 c SNR0 SNR1 7 .5)3. Beff = 20 MHz.5)3.The nearfar effect in asynchronous CDMA s Grouping the previous yields condition dj 1 1 ≤ Lc − ∑ d = U −1 i =1 i SNR0 SNR1 U i≠ j α s s s Multipleaccess interference (MAI) power should not be larger than what the receiver sensitivity can accommodate Note the manifestation of nearfar effect because just one larger sum term on the left side of the equation voids it Example: Assume that all but one transmitter have the same distance to the receiving node.68 + U − 2 ≤ Lc − SNR0 SNR1 U ≤ 2 − 2. Rb = 30 kb/s. BPSK = (2 / Tc ) /(1/ Tb ) = 2Tb / Tc ≈ 2T Beff b Timo O.
they can not communicate in the system in the required SNR level. This illustrates the nearfar effect To minimize the nearfar effect efficient power control is should be adaptively realized in asynchronous CDMAsystems Timo O.78 s all the other users will be rejected.s By using the perfect power balance the number of users is 1 1 U = 1 + Lc − = 42 ( SNR)0 ( SNR)1 s s Hence the presence of a single user so near has dropped the number of users into almost 1/3 part of the maximum number If this user comes closer than d1 ≤ d j / 2. e.g. Helsinki University of Technology 8 . Korhonen.
and ARQsystems x Diversitysystems: .Frequency . Korhonen. Helsinki University of Technology . This can be achieved by x Code waveform design (BWrate/tradeoff) x Power control (minimizes nearfar effect) x FEC.Time x multiuser detection 9 Timo O.Fighting against Multiple Access Interference s s s CDMA system can be realized by spreading codes having low cross correlation as Gold codes (asynchronous usage) or Walsh codes (synchronous usage) Multipath channel with large delay spread can destroy code crosscorrelation properties x a remedy: asynchronous systems with large code gain assume other users to behave as Gaussian noise (as just analyzed!) Additional compensation of MAI yields further capacity (increases receiver sensitivity).Spatial .
Helsinki University of Technology .MAI versus ISI (InterSymbolic Interference) x Note that there exists a strong parallelism between the problem of MAI and that of ISI: Asynchronous channel of Kusers behaves the same way as a single user channel having ISI with *memory depth of K1 x x Hence. Korhonen. a number of multiuser detectors have their equalizer counter parts as: 3 maximum likelihood 3 zeroforcing 3 minimum mean square 3 decision feedback General classification of multiuser detectors: 3 linear 3 subtractive *This could be generated for instance by a multipath channel having K1 taps 10 Timo O.
Helsinki University of Technology 11 . Korhonen.Maximumlikelihood sequence detection s Optimum multiuser detection applies maximumlikelihood principle: s s Considering the whole received sequence. N bits) x requires estimation of received amplitudes and phases that takes still more computational power x can be implemented by using Viterbidecoder that is ‘practically optimum’ MLdetection scheme to reduce computational complexity by surviving path selections We discuss first the conventional detector (by following the approach we already had to familiarize to denotations) Timo O. find the estimate for the received sequence that has the The ML principle minimum distance to the allowed sequences x has the optimum performance provided transmitted symbols equal alike K x has large computational complexity .In exhaustive search 2N vectors to be considered! (K users.
Korhonen. Helsinki University of Technology .Formulation: Received signal s s Assume x single path AWGN channel x perfect carrier synchronization x BPSK modulation Received signal is therefore r (t ) = ∑ Ak (t ) g k (t )d k (t ) + n(t ) k =1 K where for K users Ak (t ) is the amplitude g k (t ) is the spreading code waveform d k (t ) is the data modulation of the k:th user n(t ) is the AWGN with N0/2 PSD s Note that there are Lc chips/bit (Lc : processing gain) 12 Timo O.
Conventional detection (without MUD) for multiple access s The conventional DS receiver for K users consists of K matched filters or correlators: r (t ) g1 (t ) ∫0 Tb ∫0 Tb x(t )dx decision ˆ d1 ˆ d2 x(t )dx decision g2 (t ) ∫0 Tb M M x(t )dx M M decision ˆ dK gK (t ) s Each user is detected without considering background noise (generated by the spreading codes of the other users) to be deterministic (Assumed to be genuine AWGN) 13 Timo O. Korhonen. Helsinki University of Technology .
Korhonen.k = 1.k = b s ρi .and autocorrelation s 1 ∫ gi (t ) g k (t )dt and small Hence we require a largeTb T autocorrelation crosscorrelation (small ISI) ρ i .k Ai di + K k k k k k b Timo O. Helsinki University of Technology 14 . MAI and ≤ ρ k ≤ 1. i ≠ k filtered Gaussian noise terms (as discussed earlier) yk = 1 ∫T r (t ) g k (t )dt Tb b s 1 ∫T n(t ) g k (t )dt i≠k Tb Received SNR A d + MAI considered earlier in this lecture y = of this was + z yk = Ak d k + ∑ i =1 ρ i . i = k The output for the K:th0useri .Output for the K:th user without MUD s Detection quality depends on code cross.consist of the signal.
2 A1d1 + A2 d 2 + ρ3.1 A2 d 2 + ρ 3.1 A3 d3 + z1 y2 = ρ1.2 0 1 0 0 A2 0 0 d1 z1 0 d 2 + z2 A3 d3 z3 that is expressed by the matrixvector notation as y = RAd + z matched filter outputs correlations between each pair of codes Timo O.2 y3 ρ1.2 A3 d 3 + z2 y = ρ Ad + ρ A d + A d + z 1.1 1 ρ 2.3 2 2 3 3 3 3 y1 1 y = ρ 2 1.3 ρ 2. Helsinki University of Technology noise data received amplitudes 15 .3 ρ3.3 1 1 2.Matrix notations to consider detection for multiple access s Assume a three user synchronous system with a matched filter receiver y1 = A1d1 + ρ 2. Korhonen.1 A1 ρ3.
Korhonen.The dataterm and the MAIterm s Matrix R can be partitioned into two parts by setting y = RAd + z with R = I + Q Note that hence Q contains offdiagonal elements or R (or the crosscorrelations) and therefore MF outputs can be expressed as s y = RAd + z s s Therefore the term+ Q)contains theddecoupledzdata and QAd y = (I Ad Ad + z = A + QAd + represents the MAI Objective of all MUD schemes is to cancel out the MAIterm as effectively as possible (constraints to hardware/software complexity and computational efficiency) Timo O. Helsinki University of Technology 16 .
Asynchronous and synchronous channel s s In synchronous detection decisions can be made bitbybit In asynchronous detection bits overlap and multiuser detection is based on taking all the bits into account K r (t ) = ∑ Ak (t ) g k (t )d k (t − τ k ) + n(t ) k =1 asynchronous ch. User 1 User 2 1 s synchronous ch. Korhonen. Helsinki University of Technology 17 . N bits) τ 1 τ 2 Tb + τ 1 3Tb + τ 2 τ1 Tb + τ 1 3Tb + τ 1 Timo O. User 1 1 3 5 3 5 now every pair of the NK code 2 The matrix R contains 6 partial correlations that exist between4 4 2 6 User 2 words (K users.
3 1 ρ 4.6 0 0 0 0 ρ 6. Korhonen.5 0 0 0 0 ρ5.4 0 0 0 0 ρ 4.1 1 ρ 2.2 0 R= 0 0 0 s ρ 2. Helsinki University of Technology 18 .Asynchronous channel correlation matrix s In this example the correlation matrix extends to 6x6 dimension: y = RAd + z 1 ρ 1.algorithms can be utilized to reduce computational difficulties (memory size & computational time) Timo O.3 0 0 0 0 ρ3.5 1 s Note that the resulting matrix is sparse because most of the bits do not overlap Sparse matrix .2 1 ρ3.4 1 ρ5.
Helsinki University of Technology 19 .This results in noise enhancement! Decorrelating detector is mathematically similar to zero forcing equalizer as applied to compensate ISI Timo O. Korhonen.Decorrelating detector s The decorrelating detector applies the inverse of the correlation matrix to suppress MAI L dec = R −1 and the data estimate is therefore d dec = R −1y = R −1 ( Ad + QAd + z ) 1 4 2 43 RAd = Ad + R −1z = Ad + z dec s s s We note that the decorrelating detector eliminates the MAI completely! However. channel noise is filtered by the inverse of correlation matrix .
Decorrelating detector properties summarized s s s s s s s PROS: Provides substantial performance improvement over conventional detector under most conditions Does not need received amplitude estimation Has computational complexity substantially lower that the ML detector (linear with respect of number of users) Corresponds ML detection when the energies of the users are not know at the receiver Has probability of error independent of the signal energies CONS: Noise enhancement High computational complexity in inverting matrix R s s Timo O. Korhonen. Helsinki University of Technology 20 .
. + wN S R N S y s NS i =0 i For finite length message a finite length PE series can synthesize R1 exactly. Helsinki University of Technology ×w0 Ry ×w1 R2 y ×w2 21 .Polynomial expansion (PE) detector s S Many MUD techniques require inversion of R. However. This can be obtained efficiently by PE N L = ∑ w R i ≈ R −1 d PE = L PE y PE ˆ d PE = ∑ wi R i y = w0 R 0 y +w1R1 y. Korhonen. in practice a truncated series must be used for continuous signaling d PE = L PE y y Weight multiplication i =0 Ry Weight multiplication R2 y Weight multiplication r (t ) matched filter bank R R R y Timo O..
Korhonen. degree) = wi = R2 Timo O.Mathcadexample R = ∑ wi R i −1 i =0 NS R −1 = = series expansion of R1 (to 2. Helsinki University of Technology 22 .
Korhonen.Minimum meansquare error (MMSE) detector s Based on solving MMSE optimization problem with that should be minimized This leads into the solution E[ d − Ly ] 2 s s s s s One notes that under high SNR this solution is the same as decorrelating receiver This multiuser technique is equal to MMSE linear equalizer used to combat ISI PROS: Provides improved noise behavior with respect of decorrelating detector CONS: x Requires estimation of received amplitudes and noise level x Performance depends also on powers of interfering users 23 = L MMSE y = R + ( N 0 / 2) A −2 −1 y d Timo O. Helsinki University of Technology .
s1 (t − Tb ) + r1 (t ) Tb s s r (t − Tb ) s s s Each stage detects. regenerates and cancels out a user First the strongest user is cancelled because x it is easiest to synchronize and demodulate x this gives the highest benefit for canceling out the other users Note that the strongest user has therefore no use for this MAI canceling scheme! PROS: Small HW requirements and large performance improvement when compared to conventional detector CONS: Processing delay. Korhonen. Helsinki University of Technology To the next stage Successive interference cancellation (SIC) d1 . signal reordered if their powers changes.r (t ) MF user 1 decision d1 A1 (t − Tb ) g1 (t − τ 1 − Tb ) . in low SNR:s performance suddenly drops 24 Timo O.
r (t − Tb ) d1 (0) d 2 (0) d K (0) Parallel interference cancellation (PIC) s1 (t − Tb ) ∑ si (t ) i ≠1 d1 (1) A1 (t − Tb ) A2 (t − Tb ) AK (t − Tb ) amplitude estimation s2 (t − Tb ) spreader ∑ si (t ) i≠2 + matched filter bank sK (t − Tb ) ∑ s (t ) i≠K i decisions d 2 (1) and stage weights d K (1) parallel summer y = (I + Q) Ad + z = Ad + QAd + z With equal weights for all stages the data estimates for each stages are d(m + 1) = y − QAd( m) y = Ad + QAd + z = Ad + QA(d − d(m)) + z minimization tends to cancel MAI initial data estimates s s Number of stages determined by required accuracy (Stagebystage decisionvariance can be monitored) 25 Timo O. Helsinki University of Technology . Korhonen.
Korhonen.PIC properties s s s s SIC performs better in nonpower controlled channels PIC performs better in power balanced channels Using decorrelating detector as the first stage x improving first estimates improves total performance x simplifies system analysis Doing a partial MAI cancellation at each stage with the amount of cancellation increasing for each successive stage x tentative decisions of the earlier stages are less reliable .hence they should have a lower weight x very large performance improvements have achieved by this method x probably the most promising suboptimal MUD PIC variations Timo O. Helsinki University of Technology 26 .
reduced precision requirements for power control More efficient power utilization because nearfar effect is reduced If the neighboring cells are not included interference cancellation efficiency is greatly reduced Interference cancellation is very difficult to implement in downlink reception where. larger capacity requirements exist (DL traffic tends to be larger) 27 CONS: s s Timo O. Helsinki University of Technology .Benefits and limitations of multiuser detection PROS: s s s s Significant capacity improvement .hence for downlink a wider spectrum may be allocated Reduced MAI and nearfar effect . however.usually signals of the own cell are included More efficient uplink spectrum utilization . Korhonen.