Signal space receiver

F Estimate transmitted signal x from received samples y using signal model y = Hx + n

Receivers for interfering symbols

F Linear receivers

I H is assumed to be known (by estimation). I use linear algebra to construct symbol estimates x m I bit decisions (soft or hard) made by quantizing x m I use discreteness of x to construct the symbol estimates I iterative receivers: iterated (linear algebra + decsions) I approximative Maximum likelihood sequence estimators

F non-linear receivers

33

34

MAP and ML
F The optimum receiver nds Maximum A Posteriori (MAP) probability:
I M alternatives for x: {xm }M m=1 I MAP : most probable xm is

Maximum Likelihood Metric

F for vector signal model y p(n)
m

= Hx + n 2 1 = e|n| /N0 ( N0 )Nr = 2Nr (y Hx n) Z = d2Nr n p(y|x, n) p(n)

C Nr

= arg max P (xm |y) x

p(y|x, n) p(y|x) p(y|x)

F Maximum Likelihood and MAP

I Bayes rule: P (xm |y) = I If all signals equiprobable: P (xm ) = 1/M

p(y|xm )P (xm ) p(y)

2 1 e|yHx| /N0 N r ( N0 )

arg max P (xm |y) = arg max p(y|xm )

m m

I ML: maximum likelihood xm is = arg max p(y|xm ) x

m
35

F ML detection metric: MML = |y Hx |2 F ML decision: arg minm MML (xm )

I exhaustive search over all xm I often prohibitively complex

36

Linear Receivers
F Set of linear equations y = Hx + n F Apply linear lter (matrix) F to y F rows of lter: FH = [f1 f2 . . . fNt ] F Decision metric decouples
from this set using linear algebra 1. Solve esimate x 2. decide symbol based on x

When is a linear receiver the optimum receiver?

cannot be solved from y = Hx + n even if n known 1. If H singular, x linear lter may be optimal only if H non-singular 2. A receiver is optimal if decision metric is equivalent to ML metric: aMF = MML

MF = |x Fy|2 =
H I x n is the symbol closest to fn y

X
n

H 2 |xn fn y|

F for all possible x, y, H F proportionality constant a may depend on H, y but not on x H a (Hx y)H H1 H1 (Hx y) = |Hx y|2 HH H = aI F = H1

F Thus linear receiver is the optimum receiver only if the channel is orthogonal, H proportional to a unitary matrix. F Orthogonal signaling, no interference.
37 38

Matched Filter
F Matched Filter (MF) is one of the simplest linear receivers F combine coherently all samples according to the symbol of interest F = fn 1 H diag HH H H H 1 = hn hn hn

MRC filter

F MRC is similar to MF, with additional reliability scaling F Denition of Maximum Ratio Combining:

F Example: 2 2 channel h11 y1 = y2 h21

I MF estimate is

I hn is n:th column of H I The inverses are just a scaling of the decision surfaces

h12 h22

x1 x2

n1 n2

F optimum MRC weights will be solved below

I diversity branches combined coherently I combining weights selected to maxmize post-combining SINR I assuming noise + interference corrupting branches uncorrelated

h y1 + h (h 21 y2 11 h12 + h21 h22 ) x2 = x1 + + ltered noise x 1 = 11 2 2 2 |h11 | + |h21 | |h11 | + |h21 |2 39

40

Optimum MRC weights I

F Rewrite signal model for receiving xk X y = hk xk + hj xj + n F the covariance of noise + interference is X E i iH = hj hH j + N0 I
j 6=k

Optimum MRC weights II

F The lter is fk = Ak hk where Ak = diag[ak1 ak2 . . . akNt ] is a diagonal matrix of real reliability weights F signal power after ltering is 2 = Sk = hH k Ak hk X
m

j 6=k

{z
i

akm |hmk |2

!2

F for MRC i is approximated as uncorrelated interference: X E im i = |hmj |2 + N0 ml l

j 6=k
41

F the (Approximative) noise plus interference power is o n H Ak hk A E i i Ik = hH k k X X 2 2 |hmj | + N0 = a2 km |hmk |

m j 6=k
42

Optimum MRC weights III

F The set of reliability weights may be scaled with any number without changing SINR F choose scale so that signal power Sk = 2
I minimize interference + noise power subject to constraint X akm |hmk |2 =
m

Optimum MRC weights IV

F Find minima of L X dL 2 |hmj | + N0 2|hmk |2 = 0 = 2akm |hmk |2 dakm
j 6=k

I Lagrangian optimization: L = Ik + 2
is a Lagrange multiplier

X
m

akm |hmk |2

F MRC weights are scaled by the interference + noise power per branch

akm = P

j 6=k

|hmj | + N0

43

44

MRC example
F 2 2 MF example above F diversity branches y1 y2 F MF = h11 x1 + h12 x2 + n1 = h21 x1 + h22 x2 + n2

MRC example II
F when receiving x1 , interference powers in y1 and y2 are i = |h12 |2 + N0 E i 1 1 = |h22 |2 + N0 E i2 i2 F choosing = |h12 |2 + N0 , MRC reliability weights are a11 a12 = 1 |h12 |2 + N0 a = |h22 |2 + N0

I coherent combining with weights h 11 and h21 I SIR for symbol x1 is (omitting N0 )

F this is not MRC optimum

|h |2 + |h |2 2 11 21 SIR1 = h11 h12 + h 21 h22

F full MRC coherent combining weights h 11 and a h21 :

|h |2 + a |h |2 2 11 21 SIR1 = h11 h12 + a h h 22 21

45 46

MRC example III

F for example if channel is near orthogonal h11 = h22 = 10, h12 = h21 = 1 F plain MF gives SIRMF = 1 F MRC gives SIRMRC = 1

MRC & MF terminology

In textbooks, typically no distinction of the kind above is done between MRC & MF

MF/MRC for coloured noise is typically not treated

101 20

25 2

A matched filter is by definition a filter which maximizes SINR assuming uncorrelated noise, be it white or coloured

see e.g. Benedetto-Biglieri, excercise 2.26, p. 102 in signal space, MF is by definition MRC, even with coloured noise white-noise approximated MF or white-noise approximated MRC would be more accuate

100 + a 10 + 10a

MF vs MRC as used here is slight misuse of terminology

100.01 10.1

100

F NOTE: MRC does not maximize SINR

I MRC: best SINR assuming uncorrelated noise + interference

For conciseness of expression, MF and MRC as defined above will be used below
48

47

Zero Forcing
F Why not solve x directly form y = Hx + n, forgetting the noise? =H x
1

Minimum Mean Square Estimator (MMSE)

First calculate some covariance matrices = E (Hx + n)xH = H E xxH = H E yxH E yyH = E (Hx + n) xH HH + nH = H E xxH HH + E nnH = HHH + N0 I

F If H is singular, use Moore-Penrose pseudo-inverse: 1 H = HH H H y x

F ZF symbol estimate

I note: if H non-singular, we have 1 1 HH = H1 HH HH = H1 HH H

= x + coloured noise x
I all ISI has been forced to zero I noise is coloured (if channel not orthogonal)
49 50

MMSE II
F The Mean Square Error E = E |x Fy|2 = Tr E (x Fy) xH yH FH = Tr E xxH 2 Re FE yxH + F E yyH FH = Tr I 2 Re [FH] + F HHH + N0 I FH F Find extrema by dierentiating w.r.t. the elements of F: dE = 2HH + 2F HHH + N0 I dF FMMSE 1 = HH HHH + N0 I

MMSE III
F To see dierence of MMSE and ZF, use matrix inversion lemma 1 1 H V A1 + VVH = I + VH AV V A 1 H FMMSE = HH H + N0 I H

F MMSE is ZF regularized by noise term:

F Solve for extremum lter matrix:

F this lter minimizes the MSE

F if non-white noise , E nnH = C:

I For small N0 , MMSE becomes ZF I For large N0 , MMSE becomes MF (up to scaling) I ZF and MMSE are ML if channel orthogonal

1 H 1 1 H 1 FMMSE = HH HHH + C = H C H+I H C

52

51

SINR for generic linear receiver

F For performance analysis, post-processing SINR after linear receiver may be calculated F possible residual ISI, and possibly coloured noise F any linear receiver: FH = [f1 f2 . . . fNt ] F lter output for symbol k is zk
H H = fk H x + fk n X H H H fk hj xj + fk n = fk hk xk + | {z } j 6=k wanted signal | {z } noise and interference

SINR analysis of linear receivers

I Channel matrix is H =
53

h1

h2

...

hNt

54

SINR for generic linear receiver II

F signal power after ltering is H 2 Sk = fk hk

MF, ZF, MMSE & Channel Covariance

F MF, ZF and MMSE can be written in the form: F = LHH F ltered signal is
I LH = l1 l2 ... lNt is a channel inversion matrix

F the noise plus interference power is X 2 H H fk Ik = hj + N0 fk fk

j 6=k

z = LRx + LHH n ,

F the channel covariance matrix is R = HH H

I diagonal elements: coherently combined (MF) channels of symbol xk rkk = HH H = hH k hk
kk

F post-processing SINR is

SINRk =

Sk Ik

I o-diagonal elements: ISI between xk and xj after MF rkj = HH H = hH k hj

kj
55

56

Signal and interference power: MF, ZF, MMSE

F Everything can be understood in terms of inversion matrix and channel covariance F Concentrate on symbol xk F signal power after ltering 2 H = |(LR) |2 S k = lH k H hk kk

Post-processing SINR
F Denote G = LR F post-processing SINR: SINRk = P |gkk |2 2 H j 6=k |gkj | + N0 (LRL )kk

F noise plus interference power is X lH HH hj 2 + N0 lH R lk Ik = k k

j 6=k

I rst term in denominator comes from residual post-processing self-interference I second term is possibly enhanced and coloured noise

2 X (LR)kj + N0 LRLH kk
j 6=k

57

58

Orthogonal channel, again

F H proportional to a unitary matrix F channel covariance proportional to identity, R = r I

SINR for Matched Filter

F inversion matrix inverts just the coherently combined powers.
I linear scaling, no eect on SINR, omitted here:

F optimum inversion matrix proportional to identity, L = l I F SINR becomes (lr )2 r SINRk = , = 2 N0 l r N0

I no residual self-interference I no noise enhancement

I rkk = r is the gain of the MRC combined channels

L=I F SINR becomes SINRk = P

2 rkk j 6=k 2

|rkj | + N0 rkk

I no self-interference is suppressed I noise is not enhanced

= P

rkk
j 6=k

|rkj | /rkk + N0

59

60

SINR for Zero Forcing

F inversion matrix inverts the channel covariance, L = R1 F G=I F SINR becomes

Noise Enhancment by ZF, Example I

F Example: 2 2 channel y1 h11 = y2 h21

h12 h22

x1 x2

n1 n2

1 SINRk = N0 (R1 )kk

I self-interference vanishes completely I noise is enhanced I for an orthogonal channel we reproduce the result above

F The channel covariance matrix is |h11 |2 + |h21 |2 R = h 12 h11 + h22 h21 r11 r12 = r12 r22

h 11 h12 + h21 h22 2 |h12 | + |h22 |2

61

62

Noise Enhancment by ZF, Example II

F The determinant of R is det R = r11 r22 |r12 | F the inverse of R is R
1 2

SINR for MMSE

F inversion matrix inverts channel covariance up to regularization, L = (R + N0 I)1

1 = det R

F the ZF SINR for symbol x1 is

r22 r12

r12 r11

F expression for SINR non-transparent

1 det R 1 SINR1 = = = 1 N0 (R )kk N0 r22 N0

|r12 | r11 r22

F In limit N0 0, Zero Forcing result reproduced F In limit N0 , we have 1 L I N0

I both noise enhancement and some residual ISI

r11 N0

F For orthogonal channel, we have

I in expression for SINR, 1/N0 factors cancel I MF result reproduced

I equality only if r12 = 0, i.e. orthogonal channel I comparing to contribution of N0 to SINR for MF, noise is enhanced by ZF receiver

L = (r + N0 )1 I r G = I r + N0
I result for MF and ZF reproduced
63 64

Performance Analysis

With the SINR values calculated above, performance of a detector can be analyzed For example, if QPSK is used, the BER of a symbol with SINR_k is
BER_k = Q(sqrt[SINR_k]) where Q(x) = Erfc(x/Sqrt[2])

The average performance can be estimated by averaging the BERs

Performance Example of linear detectors: Multiuser Detection for UL CDMA

65

66

UL CDMA
F There are U users simultaneously transmitting F each user is using a spreading code cu of length SF chips
I SF is the spreading factor I The spreading code is interpreted as a column vector cu = [c1u c2u . . . cSF,u ]T I elements of spreading code have norm 1 I usually cju {1, 1} or cju {1, 1, j , j }

UL CDMA, Power control

F Power Control (PC) is required in CDMA UL due to near-far eect
I if no PC, signal from a user close to base station drowns signal of a far-away user below dynamic range of A/D converter I attempts to follow fast fading I instantaneous received signal power of dierent users equal I attempts to follow slow fading I mitigate shadowing and path loss I average received power of dierent users equal
68

F Fast PC

F the user is spreading the transmission of each symbol xu over SF chips

I example: SF = 4, one-tap channel hu , transmitted symbol xu I received signal from the transmission of user u (noise omitted): c1u c2u yu = h u c3u xu c4u

F Slow PC

67

UL CDMA, simplification for MUD analysis

F in WCDMA, UL is asynchronous
I timing of spreading codes of dierent users is not synchronized I new symbol starts in dierent chip for dierent users I spreading codes are pseudo-random sequences I good cross-correlation and auto-correlation properties

UL CDMA MUD, signal model

F signal model h1 0 y= 0 | 0 h2 0 .. . 0 0 c1 hU {z
H

c2

cU

F the spreading sequences of dierent users are not orthogonal

H F elements of covariance matrix ruv = h u h v cu c v

x1 x2 . . . xU

+n

F to simplify analysis of eect of inter-user interference on UL CDMA with and without Multiuser Detection (MUD), we assume synchronous UL with non-orthogonal spreading codes
69

I interference between users u and v if spreading codes not orthogonal

F when elements of spreading code normalized to 1: cH u cu = SF F coherently combined channel gain for user u is ruu = SF |hu |2

70

CDMA SINR for Matched Filter receiver

F MF (= MRC!) for CDMA is the well-known RAKE receiver F Matched lter SINR for user u is SINRu = P ruu |rvu | /ruu + N0
2

UL CDMA MUD Performance Plots

v 6=u

I we see the processing gain = SF against noise and interference

=P

v 6= u

|h v |2 | c H v cu | /SF + N0

SF |hu |2
2

F next pages: performance plots

I I I I

I synchronous CDMA, SF = 16

processing gain 10 log10 (16) = 12.04 dB

F for random sequences E cH u cv = F with perfect PC

I can be used to approximate SINR when many interferers

wanted signal combines coherently noise and interference non-coherently

SF for u 6= v

random complex spreading codes dierent number of users from U = 1 to U = 16 MF, ZF and MMSE receivers slow and fast PC

SINRu =

I with increasing load, SINR decreases I with full load, U = SF , SINR 0 dB

SF U 1 + N0 /|hu |2

71

72

Typical plot
Number of users At low SNR, MF approaches MMSE, ZF worse than MF MF is interference limited

One & two users, slow PC

Single user: orthogonal system. All detectors same performance

Average BER of the users Average received SNR of the users At high SNR, ZF approaches MMSE
73

Adding a user makes MF interference limited. practically no effect on ZF& MF

74

Half and full load (8 users, 16users), slow PC

Half load: MF error floor rises, small effect on ZF & MMSE, ZF at low SNR suboptimal

One & two users, fast PC

Single user: orthogonal system. Fast PC removed fading: AWGN performance in Rx SNR. Processing gain compared to AWGN ~12 dB

Full load: MF error floor rises, ZF very suboptimal, 4-6 dB loss to MMSE

Adding a user makes MF interference limited. practically no effect on ZF& MF

75

76

Half and full load (8 users, 16users), fast PC

Half load: MF error floor rises, small effect on MMSE, ZF > 1dB suboptimal

Observations from UL CDMA MUD

ZF performs worst when system is most interference limited

this is a consequence of noise enhancement when load is nearly full, channel covariance R has small eigenvalues these lead to noise enhancement regulating with N0 I in MMSE makes R better conditioned less noise enhancement

Full load: MF error floor rises, ZF 5-6 dB suboptimal

UL CDMA is desinged to operate with high load, close to pole capacity at high load, ZF performs badly for MMSE, accurate estimate of N0, and R, required

77

78