Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Ripan Deuri
I. I NTRODUCTION
Multiple Input Multiple Output (MIMO) systems are very
common in modern day communication system. For instance
multiple user communication and multiple antenna channels
can be named. The uses of multiple transmit and receive antenna enables higher system performance provided transmitted
symbols are efficiently detected. This fact has made the MIMO
detection problem an important topic among the scholars of
communication systems.
The Maximum Likelihood (ML) detector is the most efficient detector for a MIMO system however it is much costly
in terms of computational effort. ML problem is known to be
a NP-Hard due to its exponential complexity with system size.
In the series of low complexity sub-optimal detector the Zero
Forcing (ZF) detector that relaxes the discrete nature of constellation point is computationally efficient but performance is
compromised. ZF with decision feedback enhances the performance, but it is still lower than the sphere decoders. Sphere
decoders are the best performance sub-optimal detectors, but
it is limited to smaller system size due to its complexity and
compromised performance in low SNR condition.[1]
In recent times semidefinite relaxation (SDR) technique has
been widely used for sub-optimal MIMO detection. And the
motivation that leads to think about SDR is that quadratic
optimization problem can be converted to SDP by some
suitable transformation or introduction of dummy variable[2].
At the very beginning the SDR is successfully applied to
QPSK constellation which motivates the researchers to apply
the same for higher order QAM constellations. In this paper we
have discussed and demonstrated different MIMO detection
methods for QAM constellations based on SDR.
(1)
(4)
i = 1, 2, . . . , 2Nt
With this constraint the MIMO detection problem in (3) is
equivalent to solving the minimization problem
min ky Hsk22
s,u
s.t.
s2i ui = 0;
i = 1, 2, . . . , 2Nt
u2i
i = 1, 2, . . . , 2Nt
9ui + 10 = 0;
(5)
xxT xuT x
X1,1 X1,2 X1,3
(6)
X = X2,1 X2,2 X2,3 = uxT uuT u
xT
uT 1
X3,1 X3,2 X3,3
X is a PSD matrix with rank 1; since the rank constraint is
non convex, the convex SDR version of the ML problem in
(5) is formulated eliminating the rank constant as
X0
(7)
X4Nt +1,4Nt +1 = 1
diag(X1,1 ) X2,3 = 0
H H 0 HT y
0
0
where, Q = 0
yT H 0 yT y
It can be proved that the Lagrangian bi-dual formulation of
problem (5) leads to the SDP (7) above [3].
B. Bound constrained (BC) SDR
BC-SDR [4] exploits the fact of QAM constellations being
symmetric around the origin and existing of bounds l and u
such that l s2i u for i = 1, 2, . . . , 2Nt . In 16-QAM
constellation l and u are 1 and 9 respectively.
Introducing a new variable t {1},the objective function
of the ML detection problem in (3) can be simplified as
ky Hsk22 = sT HT Hs 2yT Hs + yT y
= sT HT Hs 2yT Hts + t2 yT y
(8)
= x Qx
Where,
T
s
H H
; Q=
t
yT H
HT y
yT y
(9)
s.t.
X0
1 Xi,i 9;
s.t.
bi {1};
(12)
i = 1, 2, . . . , 4Nt
Xi,i = 1, i = 1, 2, . . . , 4Nt + 1
(13)
X0
x=
min ky HWbk22
s.t.
min tr(QX)
s.t.
(10)
i = 1, 2, . . . , 2Nt
X2Nt +1,2Nt +1 = 1;
The detected signal constellations points belonging to S can
be obtained from optimal X by suitable technique.
C. Virtually antipodal (VA) SDR
An element s {S} can always be represented as a
weighted sum of antipodal element b {1}. For 16-QAM
the VA representation of s is given by
s = b1 + 2b2
(11)
H.Also
X = xxT is a rank one PSD matrix and its rank
constraint is relaxed to form the convex VA-SDR problem
above.
D. Recovering constellation points from SDR solution
is the solution in (7),
1) Eigen Value Decomposition: Let X
(10) or (13) of dimension n n.In (7) and (10) n is 2Nt + 1
and in (13) it is 4Nt + 1. The EVD based methods takes the
If v is the eigen
solution as the principle eigen vector of X.
vector corresponding to the largest eigenvalue in eigenvalue
= VVT then in case of PI and BC SDR
decomposition X
optimum s is found as
si = quant(vi /vn ); i = 1, 2, . . . , 2Nt
(14)
s = [I 2I]b
The solution from this method is the best solution if optimal
is a rank one matrix i.e., it has only one distinct nonzero
X
eigenvalue.
2) Randomization: In this approach a correlated random
for i =
Gaussian vector vi generated such that vi N (0, X)
1, 2, . . . r. The feasible vi producing the least objective value
in corresponding problem is considered as solution v. larger
the number of randomization steps r, more is the accuracy in
this approach.
After v is chosen with randomization procedure, the next
step leading to selection of optimal
s is same as (14) and (15).
3) Simple rounding: It can be noted that the minimization
variable X in the problems is of the form
T
x
x x x
x 1 =
X=
1
xT
1
Where, x is s in case of BC/PI-SDR and b in case of VA nn we can retrieve
SDR. Therefore from optimal solution X
vn1 comprising of the first n1 elements of the nth column
as
of X
v = X(1 : n 1, n)
(16)
With v in hand the next step is same as (14) and (15).
(17)
l=1
U,u,S,s
s.t.
f (S, s)
U11
U=
U21
T
U12
U2,2
N
X
ui (j) = 1, i = 1, 2, . . . , N
(24)
j=1
u
,u = 1
u2
y = HSu + n
(20)
S ss , U uu
(26)
p1 1 + p2 u1 + p3 diag(U11 ) + p4 diag(U12 )
= arg min ||
x
y Hx||2
xi S
+ p5 diag(U22 ) = 0
(27)
(20) is a valid formulation because the constraints restricts ui = s2i , diag(U11 )i = u2i , diag(U12 )i =
u3i , diag(U22 )i = u4i . Also it has eliminated the rank one
constraints i.e. S = ssT , U = uuT .
Au=1N
min
||
y HSu||2
(28)
Let P = ST HT HS and c = ST HT y
. So the optimization
problem can be written as
min uT Pu + 2cT u
s.t.
(21)
S ssT
q
1 diag(S) (2 1) 1
C. VA-SDR for 4q QAM
The VA-SDR for higher order QAM is the most generalized
version of 16 order QAM.It has the same form as in (13),
with the optimization variable X of dimension 2qNt ant the
matrices W and b redefined as
h
i
W = I 2I 4I . . . 2q1 I
(22)
h
iT
T
T
q1 T
b = bT
2b
4b
.
.
.
2
b
q
1
2
3
Au = 1N
(29)
u {0, 1}N M
U,u,S,s
s.t.
min uT ST HT HSu 2
yT HSu
Au=1N
1 uT
(30)
= tr LP
u uuT
Where, LP :=
0
c
cT
P
Let
M N = {X MM N : X1M = 1N , xij {0, 1}, i, j}
(31)
Since, the constraints Au = 1N , ui {0, 1}N M are equivalent to u = vec(U), U M N , the minimization problem
in (29) can be written as
1 uT
min tr LP
(32)
u uuT
s.t.
u = vec(U), U M N
1
1
1 uT =
Yu =
u
u
and
Y=
xT
xxT
pT WT
Wp
WppT WT
Let
=
Q
0TN (M 1)
bv
IN VM (M 1)
Then
Q
T
Y = QR
uT
uuT
Where,
(34)
(33)
(35)
IM 1
MM (M 1)
VM (M 1) =
1TM 1
Let pT = [1 x
T ]
and
i
1 h
bv =
1M N 1 (IN VM (M 1) )1(M 1)N 1
M
R = ppT =
(36)
x
T
x
x
T
(37)
min tr(Q
s.t.
T RQ)
= (1, (Q
T RQ)
0,1:n )T
diag(Q
(39)
R0
(39) is the quasi-ML decoding rule for the MIMO model
in (2). From its optimal solution R, and using the relation
(36) Y can be obtained and a randomization procedure can
be employed to recover u.
VI. S IMULATION R ESULTS AND D ISCUSSION
To simulate the SDR detectors for MIMO we have considered that the elements of the channel matrix as Rayleigh
in magnitude i.e both real and imaginary parts are i.i.d.
Gaussian with variance 21 . Also the noise elements are circular
symmetric Gaussian. To check Symbol error rate performance
Pav
we have considered SNR per bit i.e. SN R = 2k
2 , Pav is
2
the average constellation power and is noise variance per
dimension in a 2k -ary constellation.For each step about 10000
Monte-Carlo simulations are performed; 200 for one channel
matrix averaged over 50 times.
Fig.1 and Fig.2 shows the performance for 16-QAM detectors discussed in section III in 2x2 and 4x4 MIMO system
respectively. The performance are superior to ZF detector in
both cases. We have also verified ML detector performance
in 2x2 system as it requires search over 22k = 256 possible
symbol vectors.Approximation techniqes used in both these
simulations are eigenvalue decomposition.Fig.3 demonstrates
Fig. 6. average optimal value produced by SDR methods with system size
(16-QAM constellation)
[1] E. G. Larsson, MIMO Detection Methods: How They Work, IEEE Signal
Processing Magazine, May 2009, pp. 91-95.
[2] Z. Q. Luo et al., Semidefinite Relaxation of Quadratic Optimization
Problems, IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, May 2010, pp. 20-34
[3] A. Wiesel et al., Semidefinite Relaxation for Detection of 16-QAM
Signaling in MIMO Channels, IEEE Signal Processing Letters, Vol. 12,
No. 9, September 2005, pp. 653-656.
[4] W. K. Ma et al., The Equivalence of Semidefinite Relaxation MIMO
Detectors for Higher-Order QAM, IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in
Signal Processing, Vol. 3, No. 6, December 2009, pp. 1038-1052.
[5] A. Mobasher et al., A Near-Maximum-Likelihood Decoding Algorithm for
MIMO Systems Based on Semi-Definite Programming, IEEE transactions
on Information Theory, Vol. 53, No. 11, November 2007, pp. 3869-3886.