SEVENTH FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME

THEME 3
Information and Communication Technologies

D3.2.2 - Single point ESPAR limits

Full Project Title:

High capacity network Architecture with Remote radio heads

& Parasitic antenna arrays

Grant Agreement Number: 318489

Version no

V1.0

D3.2.2 Single point ESPAR limits

Objectives
The main objective of deliverable D3.2.2 is to investigate fundamental limits of MIMO systems
with single-RF chain. Single-RF MIMO systems are analyzed from information theoretic perspective. First, it is shown that the classical information theory analysis for MIMO systems cannot
be used in the proposed single-RF MIMO system and then the new analysis is presented. The
scope of analysis in this deliverable will be completed during the project and will be presented
in deliverable D3.2.3.

Main activities
This deliverable starts with the information theory modeling of MIMO systems with the singleRF chain transmitter. Next, the analysis and results on fundamental limits are presented. The
fundamental limits presented in this deliverable is for point to point MIMO systems with singleRF transmitters. Generalization to multiuser scenario will be completed during the project in the
future.

Task participation
NTNU: Mohammad Ali Sedaghat, Ralf R. Muller
IMPERIAL: Borzoo Rassouli, Bruno Clerckx

Key results
I. MIMO

SYSTEMS WITH SINGLE -RF CHAIN :

P EAK POWER CONSTRAINT

We start from a very general model for MIMO systems with single-RF chain. Assume a
MIMO transmitter with N antennas fed by single power amplifier and a MIMO receiver with
K antennas. The input-output relationship of such a system is described as
y = Hx + n,

April 29, 2014

(1)

DRAFT

HARP D3.2.2 Single point ESPAR limits

where H is the channel matrix and n is the i.i.d. additive white Gaussian noise vector. Note that
during this work, it is assumed that the channel matrix is known at both transmitter and receiver.
The other cases such as no CSI at the receiver will be investigated in the future. To obtain
fundamental limits of such a system, we need to apply all physical constraints. A well-known
constraint which has been considered in MIMO transmitters so far, is average power constraint,
{
}
i.e., E x x Pav . The average power constraint represents amount of power radiated on air.
By applying this constraint, the maximum throughput has been calculated for a given average
power constraint [1]. When the average power constraint is considered, the capacity achieving
distribution is Gaussian [1] which may require infinite instantaneous power. However, there is
another constraint in practical MIMO transmitters on peak power. This constraint originates
from power amplifiers in communication systems. In fact, the instantaneous power cannot be
unlimited. Therefore, the information theoretic analysis which has been reported so far cannot
be applied to a practical MIMO system with peak power constraint.
In the proposed single-RF MIMO transmitter in HARP [2], the whole power is generated by
a central power amplifier. We have the same in ESPAR configuration. Thus, the peak power
constraint in single-RF MIMO can be written as
x x Ppeak .

(2)

In contrast to the single-RF MIMO, in MIMO systems with multiple-RF chain the peak power
constraint is applied to each antenna as
|xn |2 Ppeak,n .

(3)

In the remaining parts of this work, the information theory analysis of the considered MIMO
system is presented. Note that due to the peak power constraint, the existent information theory
results about MIMO systems is not correct anymore. Therefore, for all point to point MIMO
scenario and also multiple access and broadcast channels in multiuser MIMO, new analysis
should be performed.
II. C APACITY ANALYSIS OF MIMO

SYSTEMS EQUIPPED WITH SINGLE -RF TRANSMITTERS

A. Literature review
As aforementioned, to have an information theory analysis in MIMO systems with single-RF
chain transmitter we have to apply the peak power constraint. Lets consider a point to point

HARP D3.2.2 Single point ESPAR limits

MIMO system equipped with single-RF chain transmitter. Analysis of multiuser MIMO systems
will be addressed in the future. The single-RF chain transmitter can be an ESPAR or the new
single-RF transmitter proposed in [2].
For the first time, Smith in 1971 discussed capacity of one-dimensional AWGN communication channel with peak power constraint at transmitter together with average power constraint
[3]. Smith showed that in an AWGN channel with real signals, peak power constraint results
in a discrete capacity achieving input distribution. Smith showed that the capacity achieving
distribution is discrete with finite number of mass points. In 1995, it was shown in [4] that
the capacity achieving distribution in one-dimensional complex AWGN channel is discrete in
amplitude but continuous uniform in phase. Note that, there is no close form expression for the
capacity when we have peak power constraint in AWGN channel and the capacity should be
calculated numerically. Smith in [3] proposed a method to calculate optimal input mass points
numerically.
After the work by Shamai in [4], an interesting problem was capacity of multi-dimensional
AWGN channels with peak power constraint. In 2005, the authors in [5] showed that the capacity
achieving distribution for such a channel is uniform on some shells. Based on the results in [5],
capacity achieving distribution in a channel
y = x + n,

(4)

with the constraint x x Ppeak , is uniform on some hypersphere with different radius. It was
proven that the number of hypersphere is finite. However, the proof in [5] is based on the identity
theorem in multi-dimensional complex space which is not rigorous as explained in [6]. In the
next subsection, we provide a new proof for the claim in [5] based on the spherical coordinate
expansion.
B. A new proof for the capacity of multi-dimensional AWGN channel with bounded inputs
In this section, we present a proof for the capacity of vector Gaussian channel with peak and
average power constraints as exist in single-RF MIMO transmitters. A discrete-time memoryless
vector Gaussian channel is considered. It is assumed that the input and output are real signals.
Generalization to complex AWGN channel is straightforward by using the mapping N 2N ,
where N is the dimension of channel.

HARP D3.2.2 Single point ESPAR limits

The capacity of the channel in (4) under peak and average power constraints is given by
C(Ppeak , Pav ) =

sup

I(x; y),

(5)

fx (x):x2 Ppeak , E(x2 )Pav

where fx (x) denotes the input probability density function, and Ppeak , Pav are the upper bounds
for the peak and the average power, respectively. By writing the mutual information in terms of
the differential entropies (shown by H), we have
I(x; y) = H(y) H(y|x) = H(y)

N
ln(2e).
2

(6)

The vectors y and x can be shown in spherical coordinate as

y = Ry a() , x = Rx a(),
where Ry and Rx denote the radius components of the output signal and the input signal in
spherical coordinate, respectively. = [1 , 2 , . . . , N 1 ]T and = [1 , 2 , . . . , N 1 ]T
are, respectively, the phase vectors of the output and input, in which i , i [0, ] for i =
{1, . . . , N 2} and N 1 ,N 1 [0, 2). a() = [a1 (), . . . , aN ()]T in which

cos k1 sin 1 k N 1
k
i
i=1
.
ak () =

k1

sin i
k=N

(7)

i=1

Therefore, the optimization problem in (5) is equivalent to

C(Ppeak , Pav ) =

sup
2 P
2
fRx , (,):Rx
peak ,E(Rx )Pav

H(y)

N
ln 2e.
2

The differential entropy of the output is given by

H(Y ) =
fy (y) ln fy (y)dy
RN

= H(Ry , ) +

fRy (r) ln r

N 1

dr +

(8)

(9)
N
2

i=1

fi (i ) ln sinN i1 i di ,

(10)

where (10) results from transforming (9) to spherical domain. The conditional pdf of Ry ,
conditioned on Rx , is given by
1

r 2 +2 2rat ()a()
2

N 1

N
2

r
fRy ,|Rx , (r, |, ) = N e
sinN i1 i .
( 2)
i=1
From (11), the joint pdf of the magnitude and phases of the output is

2
fRy ,|Rx , (r, |, )dN FRx , (, ),
fRy , (r, ) =
...
0
| 0 {z 0 } 0
N 2 times

(11)

(12)

HARP D3.2.2 Single point ESPAR limits

in which FRx , (, ) denotes the cumulative distribution function (CDF) of (Rx , ). By integrating (12) over the phase vector ,

fRy (r) =

L(r, )fP ()d,

(13)

where

L(r, ) =

...
0
| {z 0 }
N 2 times

fRy ,|Rx , (r, |, )dN 1 . . . d1 .

(14)

(13) implies that in the AWGN channel of (4), fRy (r) is only a function of fRx () and not
f (). It is obvious that
H(Ry , ) H(Ry ) +

N
1

H(i ) H(Ry ) +

N
2

i=1

H(i ) + ln 2,

(15)

i=1

where the first inequality is tight iff the elements of {Ry , 1 , . . . , N 1 } are mutually independent, and the second inequality becomes tight iff N 1 is uniformly distributed over [0, 2).
From (10) and (15)
H(y) H(Ry )+

N
2

i=1

H(i )+

fRy (r) ln r

N 1

dr+

N
2

i=1

fi (i ) ln sinN i1 i di +ln 2.

In order to make the analysis easier, we define

Ry N
, Ui = sinN i1 i di + Ci , i = 1, . . . , N 2.
V =
N

(16)

(17)

Without loss of generality, the constant of integration (Ci ) is chosen such that SUi (the support
of Ui ) has a tight lower bound of 0. Since Ry 0 and i [0, ](i = 1, . . . , N 2), it is easy
to show that the two mappings Ry V and i Ui (defined in (17)) are invertible. Also,
( N i+1 )
SUi = [0, i ] where i = 2N i . From (13), the pdf of V is
( 2 )

fV (v) = fV (v; FRx ) =
K(v, )dFRx (),
(18)
0

HARP D3.2.2 Single point ESPAR limits

where the kernel K(v, ) is given by

(
)
N
L
N v,
K(v, ) = ( )N 1
N
Nv

...
0
| {z 0 }
N 2 times

Ne
( 2)

( N N v)

+2 2

N
N vat ()a()

N
2

sinN i1 i dN 1 . . . d1 .

i=1

(19)
As in [3], the notation ; F in the argument of any function is to emphasize the dependency on
F . The differential entropy of V is
H(V ) = H(V ; FRx )

=
fV (v; FRx ) ln fV (v; FRx )dv
0

fR (r)
=
fRy (r) ln Ny 1 dr,
r
0

(20)

and the differential entropy of Ui is

fUi (u) ln fUi (u)du

H(Ui ) =
SUi

fi (i ) ln
0

fi (i )
di , i = 1, . . . , N 2.
sinN i1 i

(21)

Rewriting (8), we have

C(Ppeak , Pav ) =

sup
2 P
2
FRx ():Rx
peak ,E[Rx ]Pav

sup
2 P
2
FRx ():Rx
peak ,E[Rx ]Pav

H(y)
{

N
ln 2e
2

H(V ; FRx ) +

(22)

N
2

i=1

}
)
(
N
N
H(Ui ) + 1
ln 2
2
2
(23)

sup
2 P
2
FRx ():Rx
peak ,E[Ry ]Pav

H(V ; FRx ) +

N
2

i=1

(
)
N
N
ln i + 1
ln 2 , (24)
2
2

where (23) results from (16), (20) and (21). (24) is due to the fact that since SUi is bounded,
H(Ui ) is maximized when Ui is uniformly distributed. It is easy to verify that if the magnitude
and phases of the input are mutually independent with the phases having the distribution
n1 U [0, 2) , fi (i ) = i sinN i1 i i = 1, . . . , N 2

(25)

HARP D3.2.2 Single point ESPAR limits

the magnitude and phases of the output become mutually independent with the phases having
the distribution
N 1 U [0, 2) , fi (i ) = i sinni1 i i = 1, . . . , N 2
where i =

( N i+1
)
2

ni .
( 2 )

(26)

In other words, having the input distribution

1
fP, (, ) =
fRx ()
i sinN i1 i ,
2
i=1

(27)

1
fRy , (r, ) =
fRy (r)
i sinN i1 i .
2
i=1

(28)

N 2

results in

N 2

The above result can be easily checked either by solving for fRy , (r, ) in (12) or by the fact
that the summation of two independent spherically symmetric random vectors is still spherically
symmetric.1 Also, note that having i (i = 1, . . . , N 2) distributed as (26) implies uniform Ui
on [0, i ] (i = 1, . . . , N 2). It can be observed that the input pdf in (27) makes the inequalities
in (23) and (24) tight. Since the constraint is only on the magnitude of the input, it is concluded
that the optimal input distribution must have mutually independent phases and magnitude with
the phases being distributed as (25). Therefore,
C(Ppeak , Pav ) =

sup
2 ]P
FRx ():Rx 2 Ppeak ,E[Rx
av

H(V ; FRx )

N
2

ln i + (1

i=1

N
N
) ln 2 . (29)
2
2

Similar to [3] and [4], we define the marginal entropy density of V as

hV (x; FRx ) =
K(v, x) ln fV (v; FRx )dv.

(30)

which satisfies

H(V ; FRx ) =

hV (; FP )dFRx ().
0

Let Rx denote the set of points of increase of FRx () in the interval [0,

(31)

Ppeak ]. The main

result is given in the following theorem.

1

The magnitude and unit vector of a spherically symmetric random vector are independent and the unit vector is uniformly

distributed on the unit ball. It can be verified that this property is equivalent to the vector having the distribution of (28) in
spherical coordinates.

HARP D3.2.2 Single point ESPAR limits

T HEOREM 1 The supremization in (5) has a unique solution and the optimal input achieving
the supremum has the following distribution in the spherical coordinates,

1
(, ) =
fRx ()
i sinN i1 i ,
2
i=1
N 2

fR x

(32)

where fR x () is a pmf having a finite number of mass points (i.e., Rx has a finite cardinality).
Further, the necessary and sufficient condition for FRx () to be optimal is the existence of a
( 0) for which
hV (; FRx ) H(V ; FRx ) + (2 Pav ) , [0,

Ppeak ]

hV (; FRx ) = H(V ; FRx ) + (2 Pav ) , Rx .

(33)
(34)

Proof: The phases of the optimal input distribution have already been shown to be mutually
independent and have the distribution as (25) being independent of the magnitude. Therefore, in
what follows, we focus on the optimal distribution of the input magnitude.
Let FPpeak denote the space of all cumulative distribution functions satisfying the peak power
constraint, i.e.
FPpeak = {FRx ()|FRx () = 0 < 0 , FRx () = 1

Ppeak }.

(35)

The metric space (FPpeak , dL ) is convex and compact ( [3], [4]) where dL denotes the Levy
metric [7]. The differential entropy H(V ; FRx ) : FPpeak RRy is continuous, strictly concave
and weakly differentiable having the weak derivative at FR0 x given by
H(V ; (1 )FR0 x + FRx ) H(V ; FR0 x )
HF 0 (V ; FRx ) = lim
Rx
0

Ppeak

hV (; FR0 x )dFRx H(V ; FR0 x ) , FRx FPpeak .

(36)

The average power constraint is denoted by

Ppeak
G(FRx ) =
2 dFRx () Pav 0.

(37)

It is obvious that G : FPav Ry is concave (since it is linear) and weakly differentiable having
the weak derivative at FR0 x given by
GF 0 (FRx ) = G(FRx ) G(FR0 x ) , FRx FPpeak .
Rx

(38)

HARP D3.2.2 Single point ESPAR limits

Since H(V ; FRx ) and G(FRx ) are concave maps from FPpeak to R, Lagrangian optimization [8]
guarantees a unique solution for (27) and the necessary and sufficient condition for FRx to be
the optimal solution becomes
Ppeak
(hV (; FRx ) 2 )dFRx () H(V ; FRx ) Pav .

(39)

It is easy to show that (39) is equivalent to (33) and (34) [3]. In order to show the finiteness of
the cardinality of Rx , we extend the marginal entropy density in (30) to the complex domain
i.e.,

hV (z; FRx ) =

K(v, z) ln fV (v; FRx )dv z C.

(40)

The kernel K(v, z) is holomorphic in z for every v. This results from the fact that the real and
imaginary parts of K(v, z) satisfy the Cauchy-Riemann equations with continuous partial derivatives and the fact that the integrand in (19) is continuous and bounded over the finite boundaries
of integration. Further, by the Schwartz property ( [9]) of the kernel K(v, z), hV (z; FRx ) becomes
uniformly convergent for z K ( compact K C). Therefore, by the differentiation lemma
[10], hV (z; FRx ) is holomorphic on the complex plane.
If Rx has infinite number of points, since it is a bounded subset of real line ( [0,

Ppeak ]),

it has an accumulation point in R by Bolzano-Weierstrass theorem [11]. According to (34), the

two holomorphic functions hV (z; FRx ) and H(V ; FRx )+(z 2 Pav ) are equal on an infinite set
that has an accumulation point in C. Therefore, by the identity theorem of holomorphic functions
of one complex variable [10], the two functions are equal on the whole complex plane, i.e.
hV (z; FRx ) = H(V ; FRx ) + (z 2 Pav ) z C,

(41)

hV (; FRx ) = H(V ; FRx ) + (2 Pav ) R.

(42)

which results in

In the following, we show that (42) leads to a contradiction.

1) = 0. In this case, in which the average power constraint is relaxed, (42) results in
fV (v; FRx ) = eH(V ;FRx ) ,

(43)

which is a constant and is guaranteed by the invertibility of (30) to be the only solution.
The uniform distribution in (43) cannot be a legitimate pdf for V on the non-negative real

HARP D3.2.2 Single point ESPAR limits

10

line. This contradiction can be observed in an alternative way. By noting that from (43)
and (18), if fV (v; FRx ) is to be constant (shown by C), then
fP () = CN 1 0,

(44)

which is again the only solution by the invertibility of (18). Again, it is not a legitimate
pdf for and obviously violates the peak power constraint.
2) > 0. In this case (42) holds iff

2( )N ( NN v)2
fV (v; FRx ) =
e
,
( N2 )
(

which also holds iff

fRx () =

1 2

)N

(45)

N 1 e 12
( )
,
N2

(46)

( N
+1)
2

. It is obvious that for 0 < < 12 , the solution in (46) violates

)(Pav + N2 )
the peak power constraint and for > 21 , no legitimate fRx () results in (45). For = 21 ,

with =

N
2

fRx () = () which implies a unit mass point at zero. This, of course, contradicts the first
assumption of FRx having infinite points of increase and also results in C(Ppeak , Pav ) =
0. Therefore, the magnitude of the optimal input has finite number of mass point. This
completes the proof of the theorem.

III. A SYMPTOTIC RESULTS ON

SUM CAPACITY OF SINGLE -RF

MIMO

SYSTEMS

A. Main results
Lets assume a single-RF MIMO transmitter system with N antennas and one power amplifier. Without loss of generality lets assume a MIMO receiver with N antennas. Assume
N
2
the peak power constraint
n=1 |xn | Ppeak together with the average power constraint
}
{
N
2
Pav . It is clear that Ppeak Pav , otherwise one can neglect the average
E
n=1 |xn |
power constraint. Note that in the case of Ppeak Pav , the following results are valid by
assuming Pav Ppeak . Lets assume that H = I. The generalization to general channel model
is straightforward using eigenvalue decomposition. The channel model is
y = x + n.

(47)

HARP D3.2.2 Single point ESPAR limits

11

In the last section, we proved that capacity achieving distribution is uniform distribution on some
N -dimensional sphere shells.
There are several methods to generate uniformly distributed random variables on N -dimensional
sphere [12]. One way to generating such an N -dimensional distribution is to generate N i.i.d.
Gaussian random variables and normalize them to the norm [13]. Assume that w = [w1 , , wN ]
{
}
are zero mean i.i.d. Gaussian random variables with E ww = w2 I N and R2 = x x, where
R is the 2 -norm of input signal. For the optimal distribution, R is a discrete random variable.
Therefore, the optimal distribution can be generated as
x = R

w
w w

(48)

The following lemmas present a lower-bound and an upper-bound for the capacity of the
considered system, respectively.
L EMMA 1 A lower-bound for the capacity is obtained if R is assumed to be constant, i.e.,

fR (R) = (R Pav ).
This means that the input signal
x=

w
,
Pav
w w

(49)

gives a lower-bound for the capacity. Note that for this distribution, both peak and average
constraints are fulfilled.
L EMMA 2 An upper-bound for the capacity is obtained if the peak power constraint is relaxed.
In this case the optimal input distribution is i.i.d. Gaussian and the variances are calculated using
the water-filling method in the case of having channel H [1]. To get the upper-bound, we can
use w as input when
{
} Pav
E ww =
IN .
N

(50)

In the following theorem, it is shown that the proposed lower-bound and upper-bound are
merged when N and therefore, the capacity achieving distribution in this case is i.i.d.
Gaussian.
T HEOREM 2 For N , the capacity is achieved by using Gaussian input distribution.

HARP D3.2.2 Single point ESPAR limits

12

Proof: To prove this theorem we first assume that the average power grows with N , i.e.,
Pav = N Pav,s , where Pav,s is a finite constant. From Lemma 1, the lower-bound is obtained
using the following input vector
x=

w
N Pav,s
.
w w

(51)

Now we show that the vector x in (51) converges to i.i.d. Gaussian random vector w when
{
}
E ww = PNav I N .. This means that the upper-bound and the lower-bound merge for N .
One can write (51) as
x=
From the law of large number,

w w
N

w
Pav,s

w w
N

(52)

converges to w2 . Therefore, the elements of x become

uncorrelated and it is easily concluded that x converges to a zero mean i.i.d. Gaussian random
vector almost surely.
As a result, in single-RF MIMO transmitters we can achieve the same capacity as the unlimited
peak power case when N . In fact, we can transmit Gaussian signal with zero distortion
in the limit of N even-though we have instantaneous peak power constraint.
B. Comparison with multiple-RF chain MIMO systems
In this subsection, we calculate the capacity of multiple-RF approach in order to compare with
the results in previous subsection. Lets assume a multiple-RF chain MIMO transmitter with N
antennas, per antenna peak power constraint |xi |2 < Ppeak,s and the system model
y = x + n.

(53)

{
}
Lets also assume an average power constraint E x x Pav . The sum capacity in such a
channel is formulated as
C = max I(x; y)
{
}
subject to E x x Pav and |xi |2 < Ppeak,s .

(54)

An upper-bound is derived when ym s become independent. In this case we have

I(x; y) = H(y) H(n) =

m=1

I(xm ; ym ).

(55)

HARP D3.2.2 Single point ESPAR limits

13

Independent ym s are obtained when xm s are independent. Therefore, we have

C = max

I(xm ; xm + nm )

m=1

subject to E

}
x2m

Pav and |xm |2 < Ppeak,s .

(56)

m=1

Since we consider H = I, the distribution for all xm s is the same. Note that this cannot be
generalized to the case of H = I because of having the peak power constraint.
Therefore, the capacity is calculated as

(
)
Pav
,
C = N Cs Ppeak,s ,
N

(57)

where Cs (Pp , Pa ) is the capacity of a single-user Gaussian channel with the peak power constraint
Pp and the average power constraint Pa . This capacity has been calculated by Smith in [3] for
real channel and by Shamai in [4].
C. Numerical results
We compare the sum capacity of single-RF approach and multiple-RF approach for a real
Gaussian channel. Fig. 1 shows the result when peak and average power constraints are equal.
This figure shows the ultimate gain by using single-RF MIMO when the peak power constraint is
dominant compared to the average power constraint. Indeed, if we increase peak power constraint
the curve for the multiple RF chain becomes closer to the curve of single-RF chain. This means
that if we use sources with high back-off then the two curves are same. However, high back-off
results in high cost.
IV. A N ACHIEVABLE RATE FOR MIMO

SYSTEMS WITH SINGLE -RF CHAIN

In this section, we present an achievable rate for MIMO systems with single-RF chain with
peak power constraint. In the single-RF MIMO transmitter, we have
y = Hx + n,

(58)

x x Ppeak .

(59)

with the constraint

HARP D3.2.2 Single point ESPAR limits

14

3.5

Asymptotic capacity per antenna (nats/symbol)

2.5

1.5

0.5
SingleRF
MultipleRF
0
2

6
SNR[dB]

10

12

14

Fig. 1: The asymptotic capacity per antenna versus SN R for the single-RF approach and the
multiple-RF approach.

H is an K N matrix and x is an N 1 vector. Lets assume real inputs. In the case of

complex inputs a same notation can be used by N 2N . For simplicity in the analysis lets
assume that the number of antennas at the transmitter and the receiver are equal, i.e., N = K.
The sum capacity in such a channel is formulated as
C = max I(x; y)
subject to x x Ppeak .

(60)

Lets assume that channel is known then we can decompose the channel using singular value
decomposition as follows
H = U V .

(61)

By using (61), an equivalent channel can be considered as

1
2
y m = m
x m + nm ,

(62)

HARP D3.2.2 Single point ESPAR limits

15

where m is the mth eigenvalue of H H. One achievable case (lower bound for sum capacity)
is when ym s are independent. In this case we have
I(x; y) = H(y) H(n) =

I(xm ; ym ).

(63)

m=1

Independent ym s are obtained when xm s are independent. Therefore, we have (R is the achievable
rate)
N

C R = max

1
2
x m + nm )
I(xm ; m

m=1

subject to

x2m Ppeak .

(64)

m=1

Since xm s are independent, the constraint

N

N
m=1

x2m Ppeak becomes as

max x2m Ppeak .

(65)

m=1

A2m

max x2m .

Lets define
=
Then we have N AWGN channels with peak constraint and a total
N
constraint m=1 A2m < Ppeak .
Instead of using the notation in (62), we consider the equivalent channel ym = xm + nm when
)
(
nm N 0, 1m . Therefore, the problem of finding R is reduced to
N

R = max

Cm (Am )

m=1

subject to

A2m Ppeak ,

(66)

m=1

(
)
where Cm (Am ) is the capacity of an AWGN channel ym = xm +nm where nm N 0, 1m and
the constraint is |xm | < Am . The curve for Cm (Am ) has been derived by Smith in [3] as shown
in Fig. 1 for nm N (0, 1). Thus, our goal is to allocate Ai s to the channels. This is exactly
same as the case for average power constraint which is solved by the water-filling method [1].
A. The case m = 1

peak
In this case, it is easy to prove that Am =
. Therefore, we have
N
(
)
Ppeak
R = N Cm
.
N

The curve for the achievable rate is plotted in Fig 2.

(67)

HARP D3.2.2 Single point ESPAR limits

16

3.5

C(A) (nats/symbol)

2.5

1.5

0.5

0 1
10

10

10

10

Fig. 2: Capacity of one-dimensional AWGN channel with real input versus the peak amplitude
constraint [3].

B. Gaussian i.i.d. channels

The optimization problem (66) is convex therefore we use Lagrange method as follows
Cm (Am )
= 2Am ,
Am

(68)

where is the Lagrange multiplier. To calculate R we have to do some numerical calculation.

In the numerical calculation we assume Gaussian independent path coefficients, i.e., Hi,j
N (0, 1). Fig. 3 shows EH {R} for such a channel for different N and 100 different channel
realizations.

Future works

The capacity of point to point MIMO systems with single-RF transmitter and general channel
matrix H is a future work. In this case, the spherical coordinate cannot be used anymore.
H can be known at the transmitter or unknown. Investigating both cases is considered as
a future work.

HARP D3.2.2 Single point ESPAR limits

17

60

50

N=100
N=50
N=20
N=10
N=5

R (nats/symbol)

40

30

20

10

0
10

5
P

10
15
(dB)

20

25

30

peak

Fig. 3: Achievable rate versus the peak power for different N when m = 1.

The capacity of multiuser MIMO systems equipped with single-RF transmitters will be
discussed in the future. In this case, the users are distributed and Radio Remote Heads
(RRH) are single-RF transmitters.

When there is a peak power constraint, the Gaussian input signals are not optimal anymore. Therefore, new signal design should be performed to obtain the capacity. Designing
appropriate input signals and modulation to achieve the capacity is another future work.

In the broadcast channel, when base stations are equipped with single-RF transmitters,
precoding can be utilized to obtain better performance and power efficiency. Designing
such a precoder is a future work.
R EFERENCES

[1] E. Telatar, Capacity of multi-antenna gaussian channels, European transactions on telecommunications, vol. 10, no. 6,
pp. 585595, 1999.

HARP D3.2.2 Single point ESPAR limits

18

12
N=8
N=4
N=2

EH{R} (nats/symbol)

10

0
0

5
P

10
(dB)

15

20

peak

Fig. 4: EH {R} versus the peak power for Gaussian i.i.d. channel.

[2] M. A. Sedaghat, R. R. Muller, and G. Fischer, A novel single-RF transmitter for massive MIMO, in Smart Antennas
(WSA), 2014 18th International ITG Workshop on.

VDE, 2014, pp. 18.

[3] J. G. Smith, The information capacity of amplitude-and variance-constrained sclar gaussian channels, Information and
Control, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 203219, 1971.
[4] S. Shamai and I. Bar-David, The capacity of average and peak-power-limited quadrature gaussian channels, Information
Theory, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 10601071, 1995.
[5] T. H. Chan, S. Hranilovic, and F. R. Kschischang, Capacity-achieving probability measure for conditionally gaussian
channels with bounded inputs, Information Theory, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 51, no. 6, pp. 20732088, 2005.
[6] J. Sommerfeld, I. Bjelakovic, and H. Boche, On the boundedness of the support of optimal input measures for rayleigh
fading channels, in Information Theory, 2008. ISIT 2008. IEEE International Symposium on. IEEE, 2008, pp. 12081212.
[7] M. Loeve, Probability Theory. New York:Van Nostrand, 1960.
[8] D. G. Luenberger, Optimization by Vector Space Methods. New York:Wiley, 1969.
[9] L. Schwartz, Mathemutics for Physical Sciences. Paris, France:Herman, 1966.
[10] S. Lang, Complex Analysis. 4th ed. Springer, 1999.
[11] R. Bartle, Elements of Real Analysis.

New York:Wiley, 1964.

[12] G. Marsaglia et al., Choosing a point from the surface of a sphere, The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, vol. 43, no. 2,
pp. 645646, 1972.

HARP D3.2.2 Single point ESPAR limits

19

[13] M. E. Muller, A note on a method for generating points uniformly on n-dimensional spheres, Communications of the
ACM, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 1920, 1959.