0 Голоса «за»0 Голоса «против»

Просмотров: 2827 стр.Nov 18, 2009

© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

PS, PDF, TXT или читайте онлайн в Scribd

Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

Просмотров: 28

Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 27

Karin Engdahl, Student Member, IEEE and Kamil Sh. Zigangirov, Member, IEEE3

multilevel modulation scheme with multistage decoding using suboptimal metric,

when transmission takes place over a memoryless Gaussian channel. The upper

bounds for decoding error probabilities are functions of the Cherno bounding pa-

rameter Z . We argue that the conventional approximation of Z is not adequate, and

new values of Z that tightens the error bounds without causing them to lose their

validity are given. The capacity for this system is also calculated, and the result

hereof is the conclusion that the use of suboptimal metric in multistage decoding

causes very little degradation in capacity compared to when optimal metric is used

in each decoding stage.

titioning.

1 This work was supported in part by Swedish Research Council for Engineering Sciences under

Grant 95-164

2 Part of this work was presented at IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory,

Ulm, Germany, June 29 { July 4 1997

3 Both authors are at the Department of Information Technology, Telecommunication Theory

Group, Lund University, Box 118, S-221 00 Lund, Sweden, Phone +46 46 222 3450 and +46 46

222 4460, Fax +46 46 222 4714, e-mail karin@it.lth.se and kamil@it.lth.se

1

I. INTRODUCTION

The principle of trellis-coded modulation was described by Ungerbck in his

paper of 1982 [8], and the concept of multilevel modulation was introduced by

Imai and Hirakawa [6]. In this method the channel signal set is successively binary

partitioned using the set partitioning rule where the binary labels of the branches

from one level of the partition chain to the next are encoded by independent binary

codes. The multilevel scheme enables the usage of a suboptimal multistage decoder

[6], [7], which performs almost as well as an optimum joint maximum likelihood

sequence estimator over all levels [4], but is much less complex.

In this paper we will study a multilevel modulation scheme using QAM-signaling,

transmitting over a discrete memoryless Gaussian channel and employing a multi-

stage decoder. To further reduce complexity we use a suboptimal metric in each

decoding stage. This is shown to generate very slight performance loss in terms of

capacity.

In the following section we introduce the QAM multilevel modulation scheme,

which is a modied version of the one proposed in [6]. The channel characteristics

and the decoding procedure are also given. In Section III we upperbound the block

and burst error probabilities, for block and convolutional codes respectively. The

calculation of upper bounds for these probabilities reduces to calculation of code

generating functions with the Cherno bounding parameter Z as argument. This

parameter is a function of the intra-set squared Euclidean distance k2 on level k, the

noise variance 2 and the number of signal points on the corresponding level of set

partitioning.

2

For 2-QAM transmission (the last level of the multilevel QAM scheme) Z =

exp ( k2 =82). This value is a lower bound on Z for other levels of the scheme, and

is often used as an approximation of Z , see for example [1], though the approximation

results in that the bounds on error probability lose their validity. The inaccuracy

increases with the ratio k2 =2. An accurate upper bound on Z for any level of

the QAM scheme is Z = 4 exp ( k2 =82). This is a consequence of the \nearest

neighbor error events principle" [4], [7], and the fact that each signal point of a

M -QAM set has at most 4 nearest neighbors. This value of Z yields, especially

for small values of k2 =2, loose bounds on the error probabilities. In the case of

16-QAM the average number of nearest neighbors is 3 so here the estimation Z =

3 exp ( k2 =82) can be used [5], and for 4-QAM each signal point has 2 nearest

neighbors so Z = 2 exp ( k2 =82) is an approximation of Z .

In Sections IV and V we calculate better upper bounds on Z that tightens

the error bounds without causing them to lose their rigor. This is done using the

Cherno bounding method, which gives exponentially tight bounds [11]. The last

but one level, when the signal set is 4-QAM, is considered in Section IV, and in

Section V we calculate Z for a QAM signal set with an innite number of points.

The assumption of M -QAM with M = 1 is a mathematical abstraction, but it

is a good approximation of a M -QAM multilevel coded modulation scheme with

M < 1, at least for large M . Finally, in Section VI we calculate the capacity of

this multilevel modulation scheme using QAM-signaling and this type of suboptimal

decoder, and compare to the capacity for the same scheme using optimal metric in

each decoding stage.

3

II. SYSTEM DESCRIPTION

The transmitter and receiver described in Figure 1 is a generalization of the

scheme of Imai and Hirakawa [6] to multilevel QAM. A binary information se-

quence u is partitioned into K binary subsequences u(1) ; u(2) ; : : : ; u(K ), where each

subsequence is encoded by an independent binary component code Ck (block or

n o

convolutional). A set of K bits, v(1) (n) ; v(2) (n) ; : : : ; v(K ) (n) , one bit from each

code sequence v(1); v(2) ; : : : ; v(K ), are synchronously mapped onto one of the 2K -

QAM signal points, s (n). The K -level partitioning of the signal set is a sequence

of K partitions S (0) =S (1)= : : : =S (K ). The mapping by set partitioning is illustrated

in Figure 2 for K = 4. The squared Euclidean intra-set distance on the kth level of

partitioning is k2 = 2k 112, k = 1; 2; : : : ; K . Assuming equiprobable signal points

we get that the total average signal energy per channel use is Es = 2K 1 12 =6

when K is even, and Es = 2K +1 1 12=12 when K is odd.

When passed through the discrete memoryless Gaussian channel the complex in-

put sequence s = s (1) ; s (2) ; : : : ; s (n) ; : : : (where s (n) = a (n)+jb (n) is the channel

n o

input at the nth moment of time, a (n) ; b (n) 2 1; 3; : : : ; 2K=2 1 1=2

n p o

when K is even and a (n) ; b (n) 2 1; 3; : : : ; 2K +1=2 1 1=2 2 s.t. a (n)+

n p o

b (n) 2 0; 4; 8; : : : ; 4 2K 1=2 1 1=2 2 when K is odd) is corrupted by

the error sequence e = e (1) ; e (2) ; : : : ; e (n) ; : : : such that the complex received se-

quence is r = s + e. Here e (n) = e(I ) (n) + je(Q) (n), where e(I ) (n) and e(Q) (n) are

independent Gaussian random variables with zero mean and variance 2.

The multistage decoder consists of a set of suboptimal decoders matched to the

codes used on the corresponding levels of encoding. Each decoding stage consists of

4

calculation of distances (metrics) to the received sequence r from all possible code

words on the corresponding level of set partitioning. The side information from

the previous decoding stages determines, according to the set partitioning structure

(illustrated in Figure 2), the signal set upon which the metrics are calculated.

When calculating the metrics, the decoder uses the following suboptimal prin-

ciple. Let us suppose that a binary block code (the extension to convolutional

codes is straight forward) of length N is used on the kth level of the encoding,

and that the decoding on the previous (k 1) decoding stages determines the

subsets S (k ; S (k 1) (2) ; : : : ; S (k 1) (N ), to which the transmitted symbols of

1) (1)

the codeword v(k) = v(k) (1) ; v(k) (2) ; : : : ; v(k) (N ), v(k) (n) 2 f0; 1g, belong. Let

s(k) (n) 2 S (k 1) (n), n = 1; 2; : : : ; N and s(k) = s(k) (1) ; s(k) (2) ; : : : ; s(k) (N ).

Let S0(k 1)

(n) and S1(k 1)

(n) be subsets of S (k

n), corresponding to transmis-

1) (

sion of v(k) (n) = 0 and v(k) (n) = 1 respectively. Finally let S(vk(k)1) = Sv(k(k)(1)

1)

(1) ;

Sv(k(k)(2)

1)

(2) ; : : : ; Sv(k(k)(1)N ) (N ) be the sequence of subsets corresponding to transmission

of the code word v(k). Then the distance (metric) between the received sequence

r = r (1) ; r (2) ; : : : ; r (N ) and the codeword v(k) is determined as

r; v(k) = (k)min(k 1) dE r; s(k) ; (1)

s 2Sv(k)

where dE (x; y) means the squared Euclidean distance between the N -dimensional

vectors x and y. The decoding consists of choosing the codeword v(k) for which the

metric r; v(k) above is minimal.

The performance of a multilevel coded modulation system, which employs a

5

multistage decoder, is commonly estimated by average bit error probability of each

component code [1], [4], [7] or by block error probability and burst error probability

for block and convolutional coding respectively [1], [4]. In this section we present up-

per bounds for the last two probabilities. When considering the overall performance

of the multilevel system, it should be noted that the overall decoding error rate is

upperbounded by the sum, over all levels, of the probability that a decoding error

occurs at one level conditioned that all the previous levels were correctly decoded

[3].

Consider the kth decoding level, k = 1; 2; : : : ; K . Let us suppose that a linear

binary block code of length N (k), with L codewords, v0(k); v1(k) ; : : : ; vL(k) 1 , is used on

this level. Let the transmitted codeword be v0(k). If r; v0(k) r; vl(k) we say

that the lth codeword, l = 1; 2; : : : ; L 1, causes a decoding error and we will denote

this event "(l k). Then the probability of decoding error P "(k) on the kth level is

upperbounded by the union bound [9], [11]

LX1

P "(k) P "(l k) (2)

l=1

In the binary case P "(l k) is a function of the Hamming distance wl(k) between v0(k)

and vl(k). The main term of the bound is decreasing exponentially with wl(k), i.e. the

bound has the form

(k) (k)wl(k)

P "l < Z ; (3)

where Z (k) is a function of k2 and k2 . In this paper we will use the Cherno bounding

method for upperbounding of P "(l k) . This method gives, as is well known, an

6

exponentially tight bound [11]. From (2) and (3) we get for linear block codes [10]

(k) LX1 (k)wl(k) NX(k) (k) (k)w (k)

P " Z = aw Z = G (D) jD=Z (k) ; (4)

l=1 w=d(min

k)

where fa(wk)g is the weight distribution of the code on the kth decoding level, i.e.

k) is the minimal Hamming

a(wk) is the number of code words having weight w, d(min

distance of the code, and G(k) (D) is the generating function of the linear block code.

When a convolutional code is used, the burst error (rst-event) probability P "(k)

is upperbounded by the union type bound [9]

P "(k) < T (k) (D) jD=Z (k) (5)

where T (k) (D) is the generating function of the convolutional code on the kth de-

coding level.

We note that the commonly used upper bounds for block and burst error proba-

bilities in the block and convolutional coding cases are both functions of the param-

eter Z (k). The same is correct when considering bit error probabilities. Calculation

of the minimal possible Z (k) yields tight upperbounding of the decoding error prob-

ability on each decoding level. As mentioned in the introduction

! !

exp k2 Z (k) < 4 exp k2 (6)

8 2 8 2

when QAM-signaling is used. The bounds (4) and (5) are often violated through

the use of the lower bound exp ( k2 =82) as an approximation to Z (k). Thereby the

upper bounds (4) and (5) lose their validity. On the other hand the upper bound

4 exp ( k2 =82) sometimes gives bounds that are loose. In the following sections

we calculate the values Z (k) that give exponentially tight union bounds, (4) and

7

(5), without causing them to lose their validity. This is done by using the Cherno

bounding method and the analysis is performed for the last two decoding levels and

for a QAM signal set with an innite number of signal points. The application of

the Cherno bound to the situation considered is explained in Appendix A.

LEVELS

On the last decoding level each of the subsets S0(K 1)

and S1(K 1)

consists of

one point, and the squared Euclidean distance between the subsets is K2 . It is well

known that in this case the probability that the lth codeword will cause the decoding

error can be calculated exactly,

0 q (K ) 1 0 (K ) 2 1

(K ) w w(K)

P "l = Q @ 2l K A < exp @ wl82K A = Z (K ) l ; (7)

R p

where Q (x) = x1 exp ( t2 =2) dt= 2, and Z (K ) = Z2 = exp ( K2 =82), i.e. Z (K )

coincides with the lower bound in (6). The parameter Z (K ) is a function of the

normalized Euclidean distance K = K =, and since all the expressions of Z (k) in

the further evaluation of the error probability on the kth level will also be functions

of k = k =, we will keep this notation. Thus, without loss of generality, we

consider on the kth level of set partitioning the signal set with the minimal inter-set

Euclidean distance k and additive Gaussian noise with the variance 2 equal to 1.

Numerical values of the Cherno bounding parameter Z2 are shown in Table I for a

number of dierent = K .

Consider now the decoding on the last but one level, when the subsets S0(K 2)

and

S1(K 2)

consist of two points each. The corresponding set partitioning is presented

in Figure 3. We introduce the notation (k ) = dE r; S0(k 1)

dE r; S1(k 1) , where

8

dE r; Si(k 1) , i = 0; 1 is the squared Euclidean distance from the received signal

point r to the nearest point of the set Si(k 1). In Appendix B it is shown that

f (0)(K 1) ( ), the probability density function of (K 1) conditioned on that a zero was

sent, is equal to a scaled convolution of

!

fX (x) = p2 exp

(0) x2

2 2

and

0 2 !1 0 2 !1

1

fY (y) = p exp 2 y p

(0) @ 1 K 1 A 1

+ p exp @ 1 y+ p K 1 A

;

2 2 2 2 2

x; y 0. It is also proven i Appendix B that the following theorem applies.

Theorem 1 For the last but one level of suboptimal decoding of a multilevel coded

QAM signal set, the Cherno bounding parameter has the value

Z (K 1) = Z4 = min

s0

'(K 1) ( s) ; (8)

where

p

'( K s) = 2 exp 2 (sK 1)2 Q

1) ( 2sK 1 (9)

! !!

exp s2K 1 Q pK2 1 (2s 1) + exp s2K 1 Q pK2 1 (2s + 1) :

Numerical values of Z4 are shown in Table I for a number of dierent = K 1.

We can see that for small the values of Z4 are close to the lower bound Z2 , but for

large Z4 approaches 2Z2 due to the \nearest neighbor error events principle". In

Figure 4 we show by two examples how the bounds on error probability are improved

by the use of Z4 instead of 2Z2.

In principal the value Z that gives an exponentially tight union bound for the

error probability can be calculated for any decoding level of multilevel coded M -

QAM, but for M > 4 the calculation becomes cumbersome. For example, when the

9

signal set is the 8-QAM signal set, we would have to consider nine reception regions

of which there are 6 dierent types, as compared to the 4-QAM case where we

consider four regions that are all of the same type. Instead of carrying through with

these calculations we perform an analysis of the QAM set with an innite number

of signal points. The resulting Cherno bounding parameter Z1 upperbounds the

values of Z for any nite QAM signal set. To make this plausible we present the

following intuitive argument. Consider a M -QAM scheme for any nite M . Since

the suboptimal decoding procedure only takes the distance to the two nearest points

into consideration, the adding of ctional points from the QAM set with an innite

number of signal points, can only make the performance worse. This is because, in

this case, the distance from the received point to the nearest point of the reference

set competes not only with the distance from the received point to the nearest point

of the opposite set, but also with the distance from the received point to the nearest

ctional point.

V. THE CHERNOFF BOUNDING PARAMETER FOR A QAM SET

WITH AN INFINITE NUMBER OF SIGNAL POINTS

Here the Cherno bounding parameter for a multilevel QAM set with an innite

number of signal points, i.e. the (2Z + 1)2 -lattice, will be given. In this case the

subsets S0(k 1)

and S1(k 1)

consist, on each decoding level, of innitely many points

each. The corresponding set partitioning is presented in Figure 5. The probability

density function of (k ) , introduced in Section IV, f (0)(k) ( ), is equal to a shifted

version of the scaled convolution of

X1 2 1 p 2

(0)

fX (x) = p exp 2 x + 2ik

i= 1 2

10

p

0 x k = 2, with itself, as is shown in Appendix C. There the following theorem

is also proven.

Theorem 2 On each level of suboptimal decoding of a multilevel coded QAM signal

set with an innite number of signal points, the Cherno bounding parameter has

the value

! !

Z (k) = Z1 = min exp spk g(k) (s)2 ; (10)

s0 2

where

X

1 p ! p p !!

(k) (

g s) = 2 exp 2s2

2sik Q 2ik s Q 2ik s + p k

=

i= 1 2

p ! ! p X i sk i 2

2 s 4 2 s 1 ( 1) exp p2 1 exp k

= s exp p k

1 + 2 : (11)

k 2 k i=1 2s2 + 2i k

The innite sum in the rst expression for g (k) ( s) in (11) converges faster for large

k than for small k . If it is desirable to have fast convergence when k is small one

should use the second expression in (11). Numerical values of Z1 are shown in Table

I for a number of dierent = k . Here it can also be seen that Z1 approaches

4Z2 for large , due to the \nearest neighbor error events principle". We conclude

that the rough bounds Z2 < ZM < 4Z2 have been tightened to Z4 < ZM < Z1 for

M > 4. In Figure 6 we show by two examples how the bounds on error probability

are improved by the use of Z1 instead of 4Z2.

VI. CAPACITY AND CUTOFF RATE OF MULTISTAGE DECODING

USING SUBOPTIMAL METRIC

Analogously to [4] we consider the transmission on each level of modulation as

transmission over an individual channel. But in contrast to [4], where the capa-

cities of these individual channels for optimal decoding on each level of modulation

11

was calculated, we calculate the capacities when suboptimal decoding, described

in Section II is used. We consider the QAM signal set with an innite number of

signal points, and as an output of the individual channel we consider the sequence

of statistics (k) introduced in Section IV.

The capacity for the kth level of the given multilevel QAM system using multi-

stage decoding with suboptimal metric is

C (k ) = H H (k) j v(k) = 0 =

(k) (12)

Z 2k 1 (0) 1 1 (0) 1

= (1) (1)

f (k) (
) + 2 f (k) (
) log 2 f (k) (
) + 2 f (k) (
) d
+

2k 2

Z 2k (0)

+ 2 f (k) (
) log f (0)(k) (
)d
;

k

where the superscript denotes the transmitted bit, and where the probability den-

sity function of (k) conditioned on that a one was transmitted satises f (1)(k) (
)

= f (0)(k) (
) by symmetry. All signal points are assumed to be equally likely. Con-

sidering the ensemble of codes and calculating the expectation of decoding error

(k) = 1 log 1 + Z (k) . The capacity

probability gives that the cuto rate is Rcomp 2

and computational cuto rate of a level using QAM with an innite number of signal

points is shown in Figure 7. In this gure we also show the capacity for the same

system using optimal metric at each decoding stage calculated in [4]. We conclude

that the capacity for the system using suboptimal metric that we considered is close

to the capacity for a system using optimal metric and multistage decoding. This

indicates that it is not necessary to use the optimal metric in multistage decoding

of multilevel QAM. That is, a complexity reduction by use of the suboptimal metric

can be achieved at very small loss in capacity.

12

VII. CONCLUSIONS

The decoding error probability for multilevel QAM with multistage decoding

using suboptimal metric has been analyzed. Rigorous union bounds for error prob-

abilities of component codes have been presented and formulas for the parameter

Z have been derived. To do this the Cherno bounding method, which gives ex-

ponentially tight bounds, was applied. This formula yields a Z that gives tighter

bounds than the commonly used \nearest neighbor error events principle", but the

bounds do not lose their validity as is the case when the often used approxima-

tion Z = exp ( 2 =82) is applied. Comparison to traditional bounding techniques

for the probability of decoding error has been made for 4-QAM and a QAM sig-

nal constellation with an innite number of signal points. Calculation of capacity

and computational cuto rate was made for QAM with an innite number of signal

points. It was concluded that the capacity for the decoding using suboptimal metric

is close to the capacity for the system where optimal metric is used. Hence in terms

of capacity the need for using optimal metric is small when multilevel QAM with

multistage decoding is considered.

13

APPENDIX A.

DERIVATION OF THE CHERNOFF BOUNDING PARAMETER

Let r; v0(k) and r; vl(k) be the squared Euclidean distances (metrics) from

r to the transmitted codeword and from r to the lth codeword, l = 1; 2; : : : ; L 1,

respectively. The decision is then taken in favor of the codeword whose metric is

minimal. From (1) we have

X

N

r; vl(k) = dE r (n) ; vl(k) (n) ; l = 0; 1; : : : ; L 1; (13)

n=1

where

dE r (n) ; vl(k) (n) = min

(k 1)

dE r (n) ; s(k) (n) : (14)

s(k) (n)2S (k) (n)

vl (n)

Then the decision criterion r; v0(k) r; vl(k) >< 0, k = 1; 2; : : : ; K becomes

(l k) = PNn=1 (l k) (n) >

< 0, where

(k)

l (n) = dE r (n) ; v0(k) (n) dE r (n) ; vl(k) (n) : (15)

Without loss of generality we suppose that v0(k) is the all-zero codeword and

that vl(k) is a codeword of Hamming weight wl(k). To simplify the analysis, we also

change the order of the transmitted symbols, such that the rst wl(k) symbols of vl(k)

are ones. Then the decision statistic (l k) = Pwn=1

(k )

l (k ) ( n) is a sum of independent

identically distributed random variables (k ) (

n).

To get an exponentially tight bound for P "(l k) , let us introduce the generating

R

function of (l k), (l k) (s) = 11 exp (s ) f(lk) ( ) d , where f(l k) ( ) is the probabil-

ity density function of (l k). Since (l k) is a sum of wl(k) independent identically

w(k)

distributed random variables we have (l k) (s) = '(k) (s) l , where '(k) (s) =

14

R 1 exp (s
) f

1 (k) (
) d
and f (k ) (
) is the probability density function of (k) ( n).

Using the Cherno bound [11] we get

(k) (k) (k ) wl(k)

P "l = P l 0 min

s0

l (s) = min

s0

(k

' (s)

) ; (16)

Z (k) = min

s0

'(k) (s) : (17)

APPENDIX B.

PROOF OF THEOREM 1

Let us consider the last but one level, Figure 3. To study the probability density

function of n), we introduce the system of coordinates (x; y). In this system

(K 1) (

the four quadrants dene 4 regions, where the received point has the same nearest

point from each set. For example in the rst quadrant the nearest point from S0(K 2)

it is 1. The noise components in this system of coordinates are

independent Gaussian random variables with zero mean and variance equal to one.

The conditional probability that the received point is in the rst quadrant given

that v0(K 1)

was transmitted is equal to 1=4. In this quadrant the squared Euclidean

distance from the received point to the nearest point of the set S0(K 2)

is

!2

d E r (n) ; v (K 1)

0 ( n) = (X (n)) + Y (n) pK 1

2

(18)

2

and the squared Euclidean distance from the received point to the nearest point of

the set S1(K 2)

is

!2

dE r (n) ; vl (K 1)

(n) = X (n) pK 1 + (Y (n))2 : (19)

2

15

So the dierence between the squared Euclidean distances (15) becomes

(K 1) (

p

n) = 2K 1 (X (n) Y (n)) : (20)

1; 2; : : : ; wl(K 1)

we will drop the argument n. The random variables X and Y are

independent. The conditional probability density functions of X and Y given that

v0(K 1) was transmitted and given that the received signal is in the rst quadrant

(x 0 and y 0) are

2 x 2!

fX (x) = p exp 2 ;

(0)

(21)

2

0 !2 1 0 !2 1

(0) 1 1

fY (y) = p exp @ 2 y pK 1 1

A + p exp @ 1 p A ; (22)

K 1

2 2 2 2 y+ 2

and the conditional probability density function of (K 1) is a scaled convolution of

the probability density functions of X and Y .

If the received signal is in the second, third or fourth quadrant, we get formulas

for the representation of (K 1) analogous to (20) and for the density functions for X

and Y analogous to (21) and (22), and therefore (20){(22) are valid for all possible

received signals.

From (20){(22) follows that '(K 1) ( s) = 'X (s) 'Y (s) where

Z1 p p

'X (s) = exp 2sxK 1 fX(0) (x) dx = 2 exp (sK 1)2 Q 2sK 1 (23)

0

p Z1

'Y (s) = exp 2syK 1 fY(0) (y) dy = (24)

0

2 K 1 ! 2 K 1 !

= exp sK 1 (s 1) Q p (2s 1) +exp sK 1 (s + 1) Q p (2s + 1) ;

2 2

and Theorem 1 follows from (17), (23) and (24).

16

APPENDIX C.

PROOF OF THEOREM 2

Here we consider a level where the QAM signal set has innitely many signal

points, Figure 5. To study the probability density function of the statistics n), (k) (

we introduce the system of coordinates (x; y), Figure 5. The square regions dened

in this gure are regions in which the received point has the same nearest point from

p p

each set. For example in the region fx; y s.t. 0 < x < k = 2; 0 < y < k = 2g

point A is the nearest point from S0(k 1) , and the nearest point from S1(k 1)

is point

B. The noise components in this system of coordinates are independent Gaussian

random variables with zero mean and variance equal to one.

p p

Let us rst study the region fx; y s.t. 0 < x < k = 2; 0 < y < k = 2g. We

suppose that the received point is in this region, and that v0(k) was transmitted. Then

the squared Euclidean distance from the received point to the nearest reference point

is

dE r (n) ; v0(k) (n) = (X (n))2 + (Y (n))2 (25)

and the squared Euclidean distance from the received point to the nearest opposite

point is !2 !2

dE r (n) ; vl (n) = X (n) p + Y (n) p :

(k) k k

(26)

2 2

So the dierence between the squared Euclidean distances (15) becomes

(k ) (

p

n) = 2k (X (n) + Y (n)) 2k : (27)

(k) ( n) does not depend on n. The random variables X and Y are independent. The

17

conditional probability density functions of X and Y given that v0(k) was transmitted

p

and given that the received signal is in the region fx; y s.t. 0 < x < k = 2; 0 <

p

y < k = 2g are (see Figure 8)

P m2 p

1 x + 2i 2

i= m2 p2 exp

1

2 k

fX(0) (x) = fY(0) (x) = mlim

!1 Rpk mP 2

p = (28)

2 2 m p1 exp

2 x + 2ik

1

0 i= 2 2

P m2 p 2

1

i= m2 p2 exp 1 x + 2ik X1 2 p

= mlim k2

= p exp 12 x + 2ik 2 ;

!1 Q p2 (m + 1) i= 1 2

1

2

p (k)

0 < x < k = 2, and the conditional probability density function of is a shifted

version of the scaled convolution of the probability density functions of X and Y .

Obviously, for each of the square regions dened in Figure 5 we can introduce a

system of coordinates such that the nearest reference point would have coordinates

p p

(0; 0) and nearest opposite point coordinates k = 2; k = 2 . The dierence be-

tween the squared Euclidean distances satises (27) where X and Y are coordinates

of received point in this system of coordinate. Therefore (28) denes the condi-

tional probability density functions of X and Y given that v0(k) was transmitted,

independently from in which square region the received point is.

p

We have that mins0 '(k) (s) = mins0 '(k) 2k s , and from (17), (27) and

p p

(28) follows that '(k) 2k s = exp sk = 2 'X (s) 'Y (s), where

Z pk

2

'X (s) = 'Y (s) = exp (sx) fX(0) (x) dx = (29)

0

p exp (ik ) + 2 s 2ik

2

exp 2 x s 2ik dx

2 i= 1 0

X

1 s2 p p p !!

=2 e2 2 si k Q 2ik s Q 2ik s + pk

= g(k) (s) ;

i= 1 2

18

which proves the rst part of Theorem 2. Now let us prove the second part of the

theorem. We have from (28) that

1 X1 1 p 2 1 p 2

fX (x) = p

(0)

exp 2 x + 2ik + exp 2 x 2ik ;

2 i= 1

which can be expressed as

Z1 !

fX (x) = p1

(0)

(x; ) exp 2 d; (30)

2 1 2

p p

where (x; ) = P1j= 1 x 2 j k + x + 2j k . The Fourier

series expansion of (x; ) in is

X p

1 2 2 p p p

2 2ix cos 2i :

(x; ) = + cos (31)

k i=1 k k k

R p

Now, (30){(31) together with the equality 11 exp ( p2x2 qx) dx = exp (q2 =4p2) =p,

p > 0 [2] gives

p X

1 p p i 2!

(0) 2 2

fX (x) = + 2 cos 2ix exp (32)

k k i=1 k k

and thus

Z pk

2

g (s) = exp (sx) fX(0) (x) dx = (33)

0

i sk 2

p ! ! p X 1 ( 1) exp p2 1 exp i

= s2 exp spk 4 2s k

1 + 2i 2 ;

k 2 k i=1 2s2 + k

and the proof is complete.

19

References

[1] E. Biglieri, D. Divsalar, P. J. McLane and M. K. Simon, Introduction to Trellis-

Coded Modulation with Applications. Macmillan, 1991.

Academic Press, 1980.

a Multistage Decoder," IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory, vol. IT-43, pp. 1736-1739,

Sept. 1997.

[4] J. Huber, \Multilevel Codes: Distance Proles and Channel Capacity," in ITG-

Fachbereicht 130, Oct. 1994, pp. 305-319. Conference Record.

[6] H. Imai and S. Hirakawa, \A New Multilevel Coding Method Using Error-

Correcting Codes," IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory, vol. IT-23, pp. 371-377, May

1977.

Coded Modulation System," IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. COM-42, pp. 299-

312, Feb./Mar./Apr. 1994.

Inform. Theory, vol. IT-28, pp. 55-67, Jan. 1982.

20

[9] A. J. Viterbi and J. K. Omura, Principles of Digital Communication and Cod-

ing. McGraw Hill, 1979.

Wiley, 1965.

21

LIST OF FIGURE CAPTIONS

Figure 1: The system model showing the transmitter, the additive white Gaussian

noise (AWGN) channel and the multistage receiver.

Figure 3: The signal constellation on the last but one level.

Figure 4: Two examples of the error bound (5) for the last but one level in a QAM

system. The gure shows the bound when the lower bound in (6) D = Z2

(dashed) and the \nearest neighbor" upper bound for 4-QAM D = 2Z2

(dash-dotted) are used, and when D = Z4 (solid) is applied. (a) T (D) =

D5= (1 2D), (b) T (D) = D10 (D8 4D6 + 5D4 4D2 + 3) = ( D12 + 4D10

4D8 + 2D6 2D4 2D2 + 1).

Figure 6: Two examples of the error bound (5) for a level of a M -QAM system with

M = 1. The gure shows the bound when the lower and upper bounds in

(6) D = Z2 (dashed) and D = 4Z2 (dash-dotted) are used, and when D = Z1

(solid) is applied. The generating functions are the same as in Figure 4.

Figure 7: Capacity (solid line) and computational cuto rate (dashed line) for

QAM with an innite number of signal points, using suboptimal metric. The

capacities for 16-QAM (stars) and a \large" QAM constellation (circles), both

using optimal metric [4], are also shown.

22

LIST OF TABLE CAPTIONS

Table I: Numerical values of Z .

23

u(1) C v(1)

1

u(2)

C

v (2)

2

u Partition

of

u(3) C3

v(3) 2K -QAM s r subopti-

mal

u^

mapper AWGN

information p decoder

p

p

u(K ) C v(K )

K

Figure 1:

uuuu

uuuu

uuuu S (0) , 1

uuuu

v(1) (n) = 0 XXv(1) (n) = 1

XXX

9 XX

z

X

eueu ueue

ueue eueu p

eueu ueue S (1) , 2 = 21

ueue eueu

v(2) (n) = 0 QQv(2) (n) = 1 v(2) (n) = 0 QQv(2) (n) = 1

+

s

Q +

s

Q

eeee eueu ueue eeee

ueue eeee eeee eueu

eeee eueu ueue eeee S (2) , 3 = 21

ueue eeee eeee eueu

Jv ((3)

n) = 1

Jv ((3)

n) = 1

Jv ((3)

n) = 1

Jv (n) = 1

(3) (3) (3) (3)

v (3) (n) = 0

v ( n ) = 0 v ( n ) = 0 v ( n ) = 0

e e e e e^e e e e ee u e^u e e u ee e e^e u e e ee e eJ^e e e

J

J

J

e e u e u e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e u e e e e e u (3) p

e e e e e e e e e u e e e e e u e e u e u e e e e e e e e e e e S , 4 = 2 2 1

ueee eeue eeee eeee eeee eeee eeeu euee

Figure 2:

24

received

point

y@

I

@ (

b(

6

((H

x

( ( H

2@@x((( Hh1

I

@

(K 1)

@ @

d E r (n) ; v

0 ( n) = 0 @

@

@

dE r (n) ; vl(K 1)

(n) = 1

@

@ -

@

@

a

@

@

@

u Referencepoint 2 S0(K 2)

3 h K 1 @x 4 e Opposite point 2 S (K 2)

@ 1

Figure 3:

Z2 Z4 Z1 Z4=Z2 Z1=Z2

0.5 0.9692 0.9984 1.0000 1.03 1.03

1.0 0.8825 0.9793 1.0000 1.11 1.13

1.5 0.7548 0.9198 0.9997 1.22 1.32

2.0 0.6065 0.8124 0.9858 1.34 1.63

2.5 0.4578 0.6686 0.9152 1.46 2.00

3.0 0.3247 0.5108 0.7740 1.57 2.38

3.5 0.2163 0.3618 0.5932 1.67 2.74

4.0 0.1353 0.2379 0.4135 1.76 3.06

4.5 0.0796 0.1453 0.2636 1.82 3.31

5.0 0.0439 0.0825 0.1545 1.88 3.52

5.5 0.0228 0.0437 0.0837 1.92 3.67

6.0 0.0111 0.0216 0.0420 1.94 3.78

6.5 0.0051 0.0100 0.0196 1.96 3.86

7.0 0.0022 0.0043 0.0086 1.98 3.91

Table I:

25

10

−2

(a) (b)

−4

10

−3

10

−6

10

−4

10

−8

10

−5

10

−10

10

−6

10

−12

10

−7

10

−14

10

−8

3 4 5 6 3 4 5 6

10

Figure 4:

@

I y b x B

@

@ 6

j

A@ )

dE r (n) ; vl(k) (n) = 1

@ A @

@u @ @ e @@u @@e @@u A @ received point

@ @

@ @ @ @@

@ e@ u@ @ @

@

@ @ B@e @u @e @

@

i

P P P dE r (n) ; v0(k) (n) = 0

@ @ @ @

k @ @ @ @ @

@ @

@u @e A@u @e @u @z

A

@ @ @ @

@ e @ u @ e @ u @ e

@ -

a

u Reference point 2 S0(k 1)

@ @ @ @ @

@ @ @ @ @

e Opposite point 2 S1(k 1)

Figure 5:

10

−2

(a) (b)

−4

10

−3

10

−6

10

−4

10

−8

10

−5

10

−10

10

−6

10

−12

10

−7

10

−14

10

−8

3 4 5 6 3 4 5 6

10

Figure 6:

26

1

bits per

level and 0.8

channel use

0.6

0.4

0.2

0 0 1

10 10

Figure 7:

Figure 8:

27

## Гораздо больше, чем просто документы.

Откройте для себя все, что может предложить Scribd, включая книги и аудиокниги от крупных издательств.

Отменить можно в любой момент.