1

Peak-to-Average Power Ratio Reduction in

Single- and Multi-Antenna OFDM via
Directed Selected Mapping
Robert F.H. Fischer, Christian Siegl
Lehrstuhl f ur Informations ubertragung,
FriedrichAlexanderUniversit at ErlangenN urnberg,
Cauerstrasse 7/LIT, 91058 Erlangen, Germany,
Email: fischer,siegl@LNT.de
Abstract
Main drawback of orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing (OFDM) systems is the high
peak-to-average power ratio of the transmit signal. To cope with this problem, peak power reduction
schemes have been developedamong them, selected mapping (SLM) is a very popular approach.
In this paper, a new version of SLM for single- and multi-antenna point-to-point OFDM systems
is introduced. Main idea is to operate on blocks of OFDM frames (hyper frames) jointly, either in
spatial (MIMO) or temporal (SISO) direction, and to invest complexity only where it is required.
In contrast to other MIMO PAR reduction schemes, directed SLM utilizes the potential of MIMO
transmission. Similar to the diversity order the ccdf of PAR exhibits a steeper decay, increased by
a factor (almost) equal to the number of transmit antennas. Analytic expressions for the ccdf of
PAR are derived and guidelines for selecting the optimal parametersnumber of alternative signal
representations and hyper frame lengthare given. Numerical results cover that signicant gains
over conventional SLM can be achieved.
This work was supported by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) within the framework TakeOFDM under grant FI
982/1-1.
This work has been presented in parts at the International Conference on Communications (ICC) 2007, Glasgow, UK,
June 2007, and the International OFDM Workshop (InOWo) 2007, Hamburg, Germany, August 2007.
July 19, 2007 DRAFT
2
I. INTRODUCTION
Orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing (OFDM), has become very popular for transmis-
sion over frequency-selective channels [4]. Key point in these multicarrier techniques is the
transmission of a data stream by modulating a (usually large) number of carriers individually,
which yet can be done very efciently using the (inverse) discrete Fourier transform ((I)DFT).
However, due to the superposition of the individual signal components, the OFDM transmit
signal is almost Gaussian distributed and hence exhibits a large peak-to-average power ratio
(PAR) [4]. Clipping of these peaks by non-linear ampliers will cause undesirable out-of-
band radiation and hence violation of spectral masks. In order not to operate with large power
back-offs, an algorithmic control of the transmit signal for reduced PAR is required.
Over the last decade, a variety of PAR reduction techniques for OFDM have been de-
veloped, cf. [9]. Thereby the main representatives are (the list is not exhaustive) redundant
signal representations, in particular selected mapping (SLM) and partial transmit sequences
(PTS) [21], [5], (soft) clipping or clipping and ltering, e.g., [24], [1], redundant coding
techniques (possibly combined with channel coding), e.g., [13], [26], tone reservation, e.g.,
[30], [16], (active) constellation expansion, e.g., [15], (trellis) shaping over frequency, e.g,
[19], [10], and lattice decoding, e.g., [12], [6].
All these techniques have been designed for single-antenna, or SISO (single-input/singe-
output) OFDM. For future applications the use of antenna arrays is envisaged. Hence, parallel
OFDM transmission, often denoted as MIMO OFDM (multiple-input/multiple-output), is the
most important candidate for next-generation wireless communication, e.g., [34].
First extensions of PAR reduction techniques to MIMO OFDM were given, e.g., in [18], [2],
[12], [33], [17], [7]. However, an in-depth study of this topic and in particular the derivation
of the achievable gain over single-antenna transmission is still missing. MIMO PAR reduction
schemes should exploit the inherent potential of MIMO over SISO transmission, similar as it
is done with respect to diversity order (slope of the error rate curve over the signal-to-noise
ratio) or transmission rate. The fundamental idea behind PAR reduction for MIMO OFDM
can be paraphrased with reallocating the peak power over the antennas.
In this paper, we extent and assess SLM [3], [21] for PAR reduction in point-to-point MIMO
OFDM. Instead of simply applying single-antenna schemes in parallel, as done in, e.g., [2],
we present a methodwe call it directed SLM (dSLM)tailed to the MIMO situation. Using
this technique, similar gains as in error performance of MIMO system (achieving diversity
July 19, 2007 DRAFT
3
gain) can be observed for PAR reduction as well. Thereby, the technique is applicable for all
numbers of carriers and is not restricted to a particular modulation alphabet in the carriers,
hence it is very exible to use. In addition, it is shown, that constituting frames in temporal
direction (we call them hyper frames), the principle of dSLM can be applied to single-antenna
schemes as well.
In Section II, the system model is introduced and a review of original SLM and its
generalizations to MIMO systems is given. Section III introduces the new version of SLM,
both for the MIMO case and for single-antenna transmission operating on hyper frames.
Analytic expressions for the performance of the dSLM schemes are derived. The PAR
reduction schemes are assessed via numerical simulations in Section IV, and Section V
draws some conclusions.
II. OFDM SYSTEM MODEL AND REVIEW OF SLM
We consider a conventional discrete-time OFDM system model [4], employing a (inverse)
discrete Fourier transform ((I)DFT) of length D. For brevity, we expect all D carriers to be
active. Moreover, we assume N
T
transmit antennas, over which independent data streams
should be communicated to a receiver which is also equipped with multiple antennas (point-
to-point MIMO system). Space-time coding as, e.g., in [18], [17] is not considered.
In each of the N
T
parallel OFDM transmitters binary data is mapped to complex-valued
data symbols A
,d
, = 1, . . . , N
T
, d = 0, . . . , D 1, taken from an M-ary QAM or PSK
constellation with some variance
2
a
. The frequency-domain OFDM framescollecting the D
data symbols of each antenna and denoted by A

= [A
,0
, . . . , A
,D1
]are transformed into
the time-domain OFDM frames a

= [a
,0
, . . . , a
,D1
] via IDFT, i.e., a
,k
=
1

D1
d=0
A
,d

e
j2kd/D
, = 1, . . . , N
T
, k = 0, . . . , D 1. The correspondence is written in short as a

=
IDFTA

.
A. Peak-to-Average Power Ratio
Because of the statistical independence of the carriers, the time-domain samples a
,k
are
approximately complex Gaussian distributed.
1
This results in a high peak-to-average power
1
As common in literature, we concentrate on the PAR of the discrete-time samples a
,k
, which gives an estimate for
the PAR of the continuous-time transmit signal, obtained after inserting the guard interval, pulse shaping (including
digital-to-analog conversion), and modulation to radio frequency.
July 19, 2007 DRAFT
4
ratio
2

def
=
max
k
[a
,k
[
2
E[a
,k
[
2

=
max
k
[a
,k
[
2

2
a
. (1)
To avoid non-linear distortion in the power ampliers and in turn the generation of undesired
out-of-band radiation, the PAR of all N
T
transmit signals should be simultaneously as small
as possible. Since performance is governed by the worst-case PAR,
3
we consider

def
= max
=1,...,N
T

=
max
,k
[a
,k
[
2

2
a
. (2)
As performance measure for PAR reduction we study the probability that the PAR of
an OFDM frame exceeds a given threshold
th
. Considering this complementary cumulative
distribution function (ccdf) of PAR ccdf(
th
)
def
= Pr >
th
(Pr: probability), clipping
probabilities can be assessed.
Noteworthy, for conventional (single-antenna) OFDM without any PAR reduction technique
and assuming Gaussian time-domain samples
ccdf
SISO
(
th
) = 1 (1 e

th
)
D
(3)
holds [3]. In MIMO OFDM, since N
T
D instead of D time-domain samples are present and
in view of (2), the ccdf of the PAR reads
ccdf
MIMO
(
th
) = 1 (1 e

th
)
N
T
D
, (4)
i.e., the same situation as in (single-antenna) OFDM with N
T
D carriers results, which is
even worse than (3), cf. [21, Fig. 1].
B. Original (Single-Antenna) Selected Mapping
In SLM each OFDM frame is mapped to a number of, say U, (independent) candidates
representing the same information. From these that one with the lowest PAR (or any other
criteria) is selected. These candidates are obtained by using U different mappings /
(u)
,
2
In this paper, in the denition of the PAR the actual energy of the considered OFDM frame is used, i.e., the short-
term power is taken into account. Other denitions using the long-term power, hence studying solely the peak power, are
also possible, cf. [22]. However, when using 4PSK, energy of each OFDM frame is constant and both denitions of PAR
coincide.
3
Other criteria may also be taken into account, e.g., the input power back-off (in SISO OFDM) is related to the harmonic
mean of the PAR of each antenna [23] which, however, is closely upper-bounded by the arithmetic mean and dominated
by the worst-case PAR.
July 19, 2007 DRAFT
5
u = 1, . . . , U, i.e., bijective transformations of a frequency-domain vector A onto alternative
versions A
(u)
= /
(u)
(A).
Mostly, the mapping function is chosen such that the initial OFDM frame A is multiplied
carrier-wise by U phase vectors P
(u)
def
= [P
(u)
0
, . . . , P
(u)
D1
], u = 1, . . . , U, [P
(u)
d
[ = 1, randomly
selected and known to transmitter and receiver, i.e., /
(u)
(A) = AP
(u)
, where denotes
element-wise multiplication. Favorably, the elements of P are chosen from 1, j, since
for these values QAM and PSK constellations are invariant, and in turn the other components
of the OFDM schemein particular synchronizationare not affected [3], [21].
Other mappings to create alternative candidates are also possible, e.g., by permuting the
frequency-domain vector A [11] or by using amplitude and phase vectors [14]. Of particular
interest is the generation of the candidates by prexing the initial (binary) data with different
labels and passing this extended block through a scrambler (pure recursive linear system
operating over the binary Galois Field) starting form the all-zero state. After mapping the
binary data to signal points, the OFDM frequency-domain block A is obtained [5]. Since
at the receiver only descrambling is required to recover data, no explicit side information
has to be communicated. Regardless of the actual mapping for generating the candidates all
subsequent discussions are equally valid.
The candidates are transformed to time-domain, a
(u)
= IDFT/
(u)
(A) (U IDFTs are
required), their PARs are calculated, and the best OFDM frame a
(u

)
is actually transmitted.
In order to recover data log
2
(U)| bits (the index u

) to indicate the vector P

(u

)
have to be
communicated to the receiver (x|: smallest integer x), either as explicite side information,
or as embedded redundancy. Fig. 1 gives the pseudocode of SLM.
Using SLM and again assuming Gaussian time-domain samples, the probability that the
PAR of an OFDM frame exceeds a certain threshold
0
is given by [3]
ccdf
SISOSLM
(
th
) = (1 (1 e

th
)
D
)
U
. (5)
C. MIMO Extensions of SLM
As a rst approach, SLM may individually be applied to each of the N
T
parallel schemes
in MIMO OFDM; a procedure called ordinary SLM (oSLM) in [2], see Fig. 2. For each of
the parallel OFDM frames the best mapping out of the U possible (not necessarily the same
for the parallel systems) is individually selected. Now, N
T
U IDFTs and N
T
log
2
(U)| bits
of side information/redundancy are required.
July 19, 2007 DRAFT
6
Since the worst-case PAR (2) does not exceed the threshold if all individual PARs stay
below the threshold, and the individual PARs are distributed according to (5), we straight-
forwardly obtain
ccdf
oSLM
(
th
) = 1 (1 ccdf
SISOSLM
(
th
))
N
T
= 1 (1 (1 (1 e

th
)
D
)
U
)
N
T
. (6)
In order to reduce signaling overhead, simplied SLM (sSLM) was proposed in [2] (called
concurrent SLM in [18]). Here, all N
T
OFDM frames are simultaneously modied using
the mapping, i.e., /
(u)

= /
(u)
, . Consequently, only log
2
(U)| bits of side information
are required. However, no complexity reduction is achieved as still N
T
U IDFTs have to be
calculated. In this case, the worst-case PAR is distributed according to [2], [18]
ccdf
sSLM
(
th
) = (ccdf
MIMO
(
th
))
U
= (1 (1 e

th
)
N
T
D
)
U
, (7)
i.e., the same performance as (one-antenna) SLM with N
T
D instead of D carriers is achieved.
Using the approximation (1 e
x
)
y
1 ye
x
, for x 1, the ccdf of PAR can be
approximated by
ccdf
SISOSLM
(
th
) D
U
e

th
U
(8a)
ccdf
oSLM
(
th
) N
T
D
U
e

th
U
(8b)
ccdf
sSLM
(
th
) N
U
T
D
U
e

th
U
(8c)
It is apparent that all above ccdfs of PAR exhibit the same slope, determined by the factor U
in the exponent. Compared to SISO SLM, oSLM is worse by the factor N
T
of antennas, and
sSLM is even worse by the factor N
U
T
. The differences between oSLM and sSLM increase
with the number of candidates U. Due to this poor performance, we do not consider sSLM
in the following.
Moreover, we can conclude that neither ordinary nor simplied SLM may use the potential
of MIMO transmission for PAR reduction. In MIMO communication, data rate or diversity
order can be improved by exploiting the spatial dimension [31]. In the same spirit, treating
the parallel transmit signals jointly, PAR reduction should improve.
July 19, 2007 DRAFT
7
III. DIRECTED SLM
A. MIMO OFDM
We now present a scheme which we call directed SLM (dSLM), capable to utilize the
advantage of MIMO transmission instead of performing worse compared to the SISO case.
Subsequently it is shown how this scheme can be applied to single-antenna transmission, too.
The discussion is based on the assumption that a xed number of N
T
U IDFTs is carried out
per frame duration.
Main idea of dSLM is to invest complexity only where PAR reduction is really needed.
Instead of performing U trials for each of the N
T
transmitters, the budget of N
T
U IDFTs
is used to successively improve the currently highest PAR over the antennas. Complexity is
hence adaptively distributed over the antennas.
For that, in the rst step the PARs of the N
T
initial (original) OFDM frames are calculated,
i.e., (/
(0)
(A) = A). Then, in each successive step, the OFDM frame with instantaneously
highest PAR is considered. Using a next mapping /
(u)
, a reduction of PAR is tried. This
procedure is continued N
T
(U 1) times, leading to the same complexity (in terms of IDFT
and PAR calculations) as oSLM. The pseudo code of the algorithm is depicted in Fig. 3.
As an option, the PAR reduction algorithm may be stopped (line Opt) if the worst-case
PAR is already below a tolerable limit
tol
. Thereby, IDFT calculations (complexity) are saved
in case of good OFDM frame, which is especially interesting in mobile scenarios where
battery power is limited.
Since, including the initial step, at maximum N
T
(U 1) + 1 trials may be performed for
one antenna, N
T
log
2
(N
T
(U 1) +1)| bits side information are required for this version of
SLM, which is still very little in practical schemes and hence tolerable.
B. SISO OFDM
The idea of directed SLM can also be applied to single-antenna systems; we refer to
this method as SISO dSLM. Instead of considering OFDM frames jointly over the spatial
dimension, in single-antenna systems it is possible to group temporally consecutive OFDM
frames. A block of N
t
successive OFDM frames will be denoted as hyper frame.
As in SISO transmission all OFDM frames of one hyper frame are transmitted in sequel,
not only the worst-case PAR is crucial but the PAR of all OFDM frames. Nevertheless, it
is still desirable to reduce the PAR of the worst OFDM frame as this one dominates the
average.
July 19, 2007 DRAFT
8
1) Non-Overlapping Hyper Frames: The immediate approach to SISO dSLM is to con-
stitute non-overlapping hyper frames (dSLM-no); after each run of dSLM the processing
window is shifted by N
t
OFDM frames. The main drawback of operating on hyper frames is
that an extra delay of OFDM frames compared to the original SLM approach is introduced.
In other words, SISO dSLM offers a trade-off between complexity (number U of candidates)
and extra delay .
In the top of Fig. 4, a delay prole of SLM is depicted. Only the inherent delay because of
block processing is studied; calculation of IDFT or PAR is assumed to be done fast enough
that it is negligible. In conventional SLM, frequency-domain OFDM frames (white) are
generated by grouping D amplitude coefcients. For each OFDM frame, the SLM algorithm
Fig. 1 assesses U alternative signal representations (illustrated by medium size black lines)
and releases the best time-domain OFDM frame (gray) for transmission. Thus, an inherent
delay of one OFDM frame is present.
The corresponding delay prole for SISO dSLM is depicted in the middle part of Fig. 4. The
algorithm groups N
t
frequency-domain OFDM frames (white) into one hyper frame. After
evaluating N
t
U alternative signal representations (one run of the dSLM algorithm of Fig. 3,
with now corresponding to the temporal direction and N
T
replaced by N
t
; illustrated by
bold black lines), the entire hyper frame is available in time domain (gray) for transmission.
Compared to original SLM, an extra delay of = N
t
1 OFDM frames is caused.
As can be seen from the gure, computations are carried out unsteadily. After each block
of N
t
OFDM frames a large number of calculations has to be done; in the remaining time
no calculations are carried out.
2) Overlapping Hyper Frames: In order to perform computations more steadily, overlapping
processing windows may be used (dSLM-o; sliding window approach). Given the next OFDM
frame, one IDFT is required to calculate its initial PAR value. The remaining budget of U 1
IDFTs and PAR calculations can be distributed over the whole hyper frame.
In Fig. 4 (third subgure), the respective delay prole is shown. In each time step (OFDM
frame duration), U alternative signal representations are assessed (illustrated by medium size
black lines) using a slightly modied version of the dSLM algorithm Fig. 3. This version
starts from the already available best candidates a

(knowing their PAR

) for the N
t
1
preceeding OFDM frames and only calculates the initial PAR of the current OFDM frame
in Line 1. The remaining budget of U 1 candidates (the for loop in Line 2 ends at U 1)
is used to improve the worst of the N
t
OFDM frames. The OFDM frames are available in
July 19, 2007 DRAFT
9
both, frequency- and time-domain (white and gray) as both versions are still required upon
nal decision. Each time step, the best version of the eldest OFDM frame
4
is released for
transmission. The extra delay is again = N
t
1.
C. Complementary Cumulative Distribution Function
In order to obtain an analytic expression for the ccdf of (MIMO or SISO) dSLM, the
selection process has to be studied. Regardless of the actual PARs, starting from the initial
N (equal to N
T
or N
t
for MIMO or SISO, respectively) OFDM frames, NU candidates
are generated, from which the best N are selected. Since we expect the candidates to be
independent, in the end NU candidates are independently generated, from which the best N
are selected.
Assuming the time-domain vector to be almost Gaussian distributed, the ccdf of original
OFDM has been given in (3). For brevity we dene (
th
)
def
= ccdf
SISO
(
th
) and notional
expect the candidates to be sorted according to increasing PAR:

1
<
2
< . . . <
NU
. (9)
The ccdf of the PAR of the
th
best OFDM frame is then given by (
0
def
= )
ccdf
dSLM,
(
th
) = Pr

>
th
= Pr
th
<

=
1

l=0
Pr
l
<
th
<
l+1
(10)
Due to the independence of the candidates, the probability for the PAR to lie in a certain
interval is given by a binomial distribution with single event probability of (1 (
th
)) and
l events out of NU come true. Hence we arrive at
ccdf
dSLM,
(
th
) =
1

l=0

NU
l

(1 (
th
))
l
((
th
))
NUl
.
(11)
1) MIMO dSLM: As already stated above, in MIMO OFDM the worst-case PAR is studied.
Hence, the ccdf of MIMO dSLM is given by (11) for = N = N
T
; it reads
ccdf
MIMOdSLM
(
th
) =
((
th
))
N
T
U
N
T
1

l=0

N
T
U
l

1 (
th
)
(
th
)

l
, (12)
with (
th
) = 1 (1 e

th
)
D
.
4
Other strategies, e.g., transmitting the currently best OFDM frame, are possible, too.
July 19, 2007 DRAFT
10
2) SISO dSLM: In case of SISO OFDM using dSLM on (non-overlapping) hyper frames,
all N
t
best candidates are actually transmitted and equally contribute to the ccdf. Hence
in this case, the ccdf is given by the arithmetic mean over ccdf
dSLM,
(
th
) from (11) for
= 1, . . . , N and N = N
t
. We thus have
ccdf
SISOdSLM
(
th
) =
1
N
t
N
t
1

=0
ccdf
dSLM,
(
th
) (13)
=
((
th
))
N
t
U
N
t
N
t
1

l=0
(N
t
l)

N
t
U
l

1 (
th
)
(
th
)

l
.
3) Asymptotic Behavior of the CCDF: Using, as above, the approximation (1 e
x
)
y

1 ye
x
, for x 1, leads to (
th
) De

th
. For large values of
th
, 1 (
th
) tends to
one and the sums in either (12) and (13) are dominated by their last term. Hence, the ccdfs
can be approximated by
ccdf
dSLM
(
th
) C

NU
N 1

(De

th
)
NU(N1)
const. e

th
(NU(N1))
, (14)
with C = 1 and N = N
T
for MIMO dSLM and C =
1
N
t
and N = N
t
in case of SISO
dSLM, respectively. The slope of the ccdf is thus given by
NU (N 1) = N(U 1) + 1 , (15)
which precisely is the maximum number of possible candidates, if all trials are concentrated
on a particular antenna/time slot.
Compared to the slope U of conventional (SISO) SLM or ordinary MIMO SLM, cf. (8), a
signicant increase to now almost NU is obtained, corresponding to faster decay of the ccdf
over the threshold PAR and thus better performance in PAR reduction. Contrasting the slopes,
an effect similar to the diversity order (slope of error rate curves) in MIMO communication
is present in MIMO/hyper frame PAR reduction as well. Using this analogy, it can be argued
that the proposed dSLM scheme exploits the potential of MIMO OFDM for PAR reduction.
However, similar as for error rates, the ccdf of dSLM is not simply that for SISO SLM using
N(U 1) +1 candidates, but, due to the factor C

NU
N1

D
NU(N1)
in (14), it additionally
exhibits a horizontal shift. In MIMO communications, suboptimal, but maximum diversity
achieving schemes (e.g., lattice-basis-reduction-aided techniques [32]) exhibit a power loss or
SNR gap compared to maximum-likelihood detection, too (cf. [29], or the capacity discussion
in [20]).
July 19, 2007 DRAFT
11
IV. NUMERICAL RESULTS
The performance of the proposed versions of SLM is now assessed by means of numerical
simulations. Unless otherwise stated, the number of carries (all are active) is D = 512 and
the modulation in each carrier is 4PSK. W.l.o.g. SLM applying phase vectors is studied,
5
where the phase vectors are chosen randomly with elements drawn from the set 1, j
(pure inversion or interchange of the quadrature components [3]).
A. MIMO Transmission
For MIMO transmission, N
T
= 4 parallel data streams are assumed. Choosing U = 4 or 16
phase vectors, in the PAR reduction schemes 4 4 = 16, and 4 16 = 64 IDFTs, respectively,
have to be calculated per OFDM frame duration.
For comparison, in Fig. 5 the ccdfs Pr >
th
of the worst-case PAR for ordinary
and directed SLM are compiled. It is clearly visible that for the same number of IDFTs
(complexity) dSLM shows (much) better performance than oSLM. For clipping levels lower
than Pr
c
= 10
5
and U = 4 gains of more than 1 dB over oSLM are possible. The larger
slope of the dSLM ccdf is also noticeable. The simulations t well with the respective above
given analytic results (gray curves).
6
To illustrate the dependence on the number of antennas, in Fig. 6 the ccdf of PAR is
plotted for N
T
= 2, 4, and 8. The number of candidates is chosen to U = 4. As derived
above, increasing N
T
leads to higher worst-case PARs in conventional MIMO OFDM and
oSLM, cf. (4) and (6). Conversely, using dSLM, performance improves for larger numbers
of antennas and the steepness of the curves (15) increases to almost N
T
U.
Finally, in Fig. 7 the ccdf of PAR is compared for 4PSK, 16QAM, and 64QAM signaling
per carrier, respectively. The parameters are again N
T
= 4, U = 4, and D = 512. Nearly no
differences between the ccdfs for 4PSK, 16QAM, and 64QAM signaling are visible. It can
hence be concluded that all versions of SLM can be applied independently of the actually
used modulation format (even when the modulation alphabet changes from carrier to carrier),
5
The performance results are representative for all types of mappings M(phase vectors, permutations, scramblers, etc.),
as long as the generated candidates are (almost) independent. Cf. also [8, Fig. 8].
6
For larger U, simulations and analytic ccdf do not agree as good as for smaller numbers of candidates. The reason
for this is not the deviation from the Gaussian assumption but it is due to the constant transmit power when using 4PSK.
Assuming i.i.d. Gaussian time-domain samples with variance
2
a
, total power of an OFDM frame is chi-square distributed
with 2D degrees of freedom [25]. This fact has not been (and cannot be easily) included in the theoretical derivation.
July 19, 2007 DRAFT
12
and that the same performance is achieved in any situation. SLM again proves to be a very
exible approach for PAR reduction.
B. SISO Transmission
We now turn to single-antenna transmission. Again, OFDM uses D = 512 carriers and
4PSK, and SLM applies the phase vector method.
In Fig. 8, the ccdf of SISO dSLM (non-overlapping and overlapping) is shown for different
numbers U of candidates and hyper frame lengths N
t
(N
t
= 1 corresponds to conventional
SISO SLM). The performance of (d)SLM increases either if more candidates are taken into
account (larger U, higher computational complexity) or if a larger hyper frame length N
t
is
used. In this case complexity remains constant but a delay of = N
t
1 OFDM frames is
introduced. The results of dSLM with overlapping hyper frames are only marginally better
than non-overlapping dSLM. For a performance point of view, both variants are equivalent
however, computations are distributed more evenly when using overlapping blocks, which is
preferable in practice. Directed SLM provides a signicant gain compared to original SLM,
about 1 dB for U = 8 and N
t
= 8 at a clipping levels Pr
c
= 10
5
. Besides the results from
numerical simulations, the analytical results (gray) are depicted. Again, good agreement can
be observed.
In order to assess which parameter combination (U, N
t
) is preferably used in PAR reduc-
tion, Fig. 9 shows a contour plot of the threshold
th
at a clipping probability of Pr
c
= 10
4
over U and N
t
. These results are based on the analytic expression (13). In addition, the
trajectory of steepest descent (starting from (U, N
t
) = (1, 1)) which offers the best trade-off
between U and N
t
is depicted.
Using the original SLM (i.e., N
t
= 1) and already high values of U it is difcult to
obtain additional gains by increasing U (going to the right on the horizontal axis). This can
be circumvented by applying dSLM (going in vertical direction in the contour plot). It is
advisable that enlarging the number U of candidates is done along with an appropriate choice
of N
t
. Starting from conventional OFDM (U = 1, N
t
= 1), the trajectory of steepest descent
gives a hint which pairs (U, N
t
) should preferably be used. Since it is almost a straight line, it
is reasonable to choose N
t
proportional to U. Table I shows how the computational complexity
of original SLM (N
t
= 1) can be reduced by dSLM. Given U of conventional SLM and the
desired clipping probability Pr
c
, the pairs (U, N
t
) are chosen such that (approximately) the
same threshold PAR
th
(given in the table) is required for both, SLM and dSLM. For
July 19, 2007 DRAFT
13
example, desiring a clipping probability of Pr
c
= 10
4
, the same performance is either
achieved for SLM with U = 64 candidates or for dSLM with only U = 16 candidates
(reduced complexity) but hyper frame length of N
t
= 11 (increased delay).
V. CONCLUSIONS
In this paper, a new approach of selected mapping for single-antenna and MIMO OFDM
systems has been introduced. Main idea is to operate on blocks of OFDM frames (hyper
frames) jointly, either in spatial or temporal direction, and to invest complexity only where it
is actually required. In contrast to other MIMO PAR reduction schemes, directed SLM utilizes
the potential of MIMO transmission. As a result, the ccdf of PAR exhibits a steeper decay,
increased by a factor (almost) equal to the number of transmit antennas. Analytic expressions
for the ccdf of PAR have been derived. In SISO transmission, a trade-off between complexity
and delay is possible. Guidelines for selecting the optimal parametersnumber of alternative
signal representations U and hyper frame length N
t
have been given. Thereby, dSLM has
only moderate complexity and is very exible to use; no restriction to any modulation format
or OFDM frame sizes apply. The presented results apply to all types of mapping used in
SLM; not only the original phase version but also the scrambler variant which does not
require to transmit explicit side information.
It should be noted that the same principles can be applied to other PAR reduction schemes
as well, in particular partial transmit sequences (PTS), cf. [27].
REFERENCES
[1] J. Armstrong. Peak-to-Average Power Reduction for OFDM by Repeated Clipping and Frequency Domain Filtering.
IEE Electronics Letters, pp. 246247, Feb. 2002.
[2] M.-S. Baek, M.-J. Kim, Y.-H. You, H.-K. Song. Semi-Blind Channel Estimation and PAR Reduction for MIMO-OFDM
System With Multiple Antennas. IEEE Transactions on Broadcasting, pp. 414424, Dec. 2004.
[3] R. B auml, R.F.H. Fischer, J.B. Huber. Reducing the Peak-to-Average Power Ratio of Multicarrier Modulation by
Selected Mapping. IEE Electronics Letters, pp. 20562057, Nov. 1996.
[4] J.A.C. Bingham. Multicarrier Modulation for Data Transmission: An Idea Whose Time Has Come. IEEE
Communications Magazine, pp. 514, May 1990.
[5] M. Breiling, S.H. M ullerWeinfurtner, J.B. Huber. SLM Peak-Power Reduction Without Explicit Side Information.
IEEE Communications Letters, pp. 239241, June 2001.
[6] R.F.H. Fischer. Peak-to-Average Power Ratio (PAR) Reduction in OFDM based on Lattice Decoding. In 11th
International OFDM Workshop, Hamburg, Germany, August 2006.
[7] R.F.H. Fischer, M. Hoch, Peak-to-Average Power Ratio Reduction in MIMO OFDM. IEE Electronics Letters, pp. 1289
1290, Oct. 2006.
July 19, 2007 DRAFT
14
[8] R.F.H. Fischer, M. Hoch, Directed Selected Mapping for Peak-to-Average Power Ratio Reduction in MIMO OFDM.
In IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC 2007), Glasgow, United Kingdom, June 2007.
[9] S.H. Han, J.H. Lee, An Overview of Peak-to-Average Power Ratio Reduction Techniques for Multicarrier Transmission.
IEEE Wireless Communications, pp. 5665, April 2005.
[10] W. Henkel, B. Wagner. Another application for trellis shaping: PAR reduction for DMT (OFDM). IEEE Transactions
on Communications, pp. 14711476, Sep. 2000.
[11] A.D.S. Jayalath, C. Tellembura. The Use of Interleaving to Reduce the Peak-to-Average Power Ratio of an OFDM
Signal. In GLOBECOM 2000, pp. 8286, Nov. 2000.
[12] J. Jiang, R.M. Buchrer, W.H. Tranter. Peak to Average Power Ratio Reduction for MIMO-OFDM Wireless System
Using Nonlinear Precoding. In GLOBECOM 2004, pp. 39893993, Nov./Dec. 2004.
[13] A.E. Jones, T.A. Wilkinson, S.K. Barton. Coding Scheme for Reduction of Peak to Mean Envelope Power Ratio of
Multicarrier Transmission Scheme. IEE Electronics Letters, pp. 20982099, Dec. 1994.
[14] B.K. Khoo, S.Y. Le Goff, C.C. Tsimendidis, B.S. Sharif. OFDM PAPR Reduction Using Selected Mapping Without
Side Information. In IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC 2007), Glasgow, United Kingdom, June
2007.
[15] B.S. Krongold, D.L. Jones. PAR Reduction in OFDM via Active Constellation Extension. IEEE Transactions on
Broadcasting, pp. 258268, Sep. 2003.
[16] B.S. Krongold, D.L. Jones. An active-set approach for OFDM PAR reduction via tone reservation. IEEE Transactions
on Signal Processing, pp. 495509, Feb. 2004.
[17] Z. Latinovic, Y. Bar-Ness. SFBC MIMO-OFDM Peak-to-Average Power Ratio Reduction by Polyphase Interleaving
and Inversion. IEEE Communications Letters, pp. 266268, April 2006.
[18] Y.-L. Lee, Y.-H. You, W.-G. Jeon, J.-H. Paik, H.-K. Song. Peak-to-Average Power Ratio in MIMO-OFDM Systems
Using Selective Mapping. IEEE Communications Letters, pp. 575577, Dec. 2003.
[19] M. Litzenburger, W. Rupprecht, Combined Trellis Shaping and Coding to Control the Envelope of a Bandlimited
PSK-Signal. In IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC 94), pp. 630634, May 1994.
[20] A. Lozano, A.M. Tulino, S. Verdu. High-SNR Power Offset in Multiantenna Communication. IEEE Transactions on
Communications, pp. 41344151, Dec. 2005.
[21] S.H. M uller, R.W. B auml, R.F.H. Fischer, J.B. Huber. OFDM with Reduced Peak-to-Average Power Ratio by Multiple
Signal Representation. Annal of Telecommunications, pp. 5867, Feb. 1997.
[22] H. Ochiai, H. Imai. Performance Analysis of Deliberately Clipped OFDM Signals. IEEE Transactions on
Communications, pp. 89101, Jan. 2002.
[23] H. Ochiai. Performance Analysis of Peak Power and Band-Limited OFDM Systems with Linear Scaling. IEEE
Transactions on Communications, pp. 10551065, Sep. 2003.
[24] M. Pauli. Zur Anwendung des Mehrtr agerverfahrens OFDM mit reduzierter Auerbandstrahlung im Mobilfunk. Ph.D.
dissertation, University Hannover, 1999.
[25] J.G. Proakis. Digital Communications. McGraw-Hill, New York, 4. edition, 2001.
[26] K.-U. Schmidt. On the PMEPR of Phase-Shifted Binary Codes. In International Symp. on Inf. Theory 2006, Seattle,
WA, July 2006.
[27] C. Siegl, R.F.H. Fischer. Partial Transmit Sequences for Peak-to-Average Power Ratio Reduction in Multi-Antenna
OFDM. Accepted for publication at EURASIP Journal on Wireless Communications and Networking, July 2007.
[28] C. Siegl, R.F.H. Fischer. Application of Directed Selected Mapping for Peak-to-Average Power Ratio Reduction in
Single Antenna OFDM. In 12th International OFDM Workshop, Hamburg, Germany, Aug. 2007.
July 19, 2007 DRAFT
15
[29] W.-Y. Shin, S.-Y. Chung, Y.H. Lee. Outage Analysis for MIMO Rician Channels and Channels with Partial CSI. In
International Symposium on Information Theory 2006, Seattle, WA, July 2006.
[30] J. Tellado. Peak to Average Power Reduction for Multicarrier Modulation. Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University,
2000.
[31] D. Tse, P. Viswanath. Fundamentals of Wireless Communication. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2005.
[32] C. Windpassinger, R.F.H. Fischer. Low-Complexity Near-Maximum-Likelihood Detection and Precoding for MIMO
Systems using Lattice Reduction. IEEE Information Theory Workshop 2003, pp. 345-348, Paris, France, Mar./Apr.
2003.
[33] G.R. Woo, D.L. Jones. Peak Power Reduction in MIMO OFDM via Active Channel Extension. In IEEE International
Conference on Communications (ICC 2005), pp. 26362639, May 2005.
[34] H. Yang. A Road to Future Broadband Wireless Access: MIMO-OFDM-Based Air Interface. IEEE Communications
Magazine, pp. 5360, Jan. 2005.
July 19, 2007 DRAFT
FIGURES 16
given: U, [P
(1)
, . . . , P
(U)
]
function a = SLM(A)
1 a = IDFT/
(1)
(A), calc.
2 for u = 2, . . . , U
3 a
new
= IDFT/
(u)
(A), calc.
new
4 if (
new
< )
5 a = a
new
, =
new
6 endif
7 endfor
Fig. 1. Pseudocode of selected mapping.
July 19, 2007 DRAFT
FIGURES 17
IDFT
IDFT
IDFT
IDFT
a
(u

1
)
1
a
(u

N
T
)
N
T
Side Information
u

1
, . . . , u

N
T
S
e
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
S
e
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
M
(1)
1
M
(U)
1
A
N
T
A
1
M
(1)
N
T
M
(U)
N
T
Fig. 2. Ordinary SLM for MIMO OFDM with N
T
parallel data streams.
July 19, 2007 DRAFT
FIGURES 18
given: U, [/
(0)
, . . . , /
(N
T
(U1))
]
function [a
1
, . . . , a
N
T
] = dSLM([A
1
, . . . , A
N
T
])
1 a

= IDFT/
(0)
(A

), calc.

, =
1, . . . , N
T
2 for u = 1, . . . , N
T
(U 1)
3 [
max
,
max
] = max
1
, . . . ,
N
T

Opt if (
max
<
tol
) return endif
4 a
new
= IDFT/
(u)
(A

max
), calc.
new
5 if (
new
<

max
)
6 a

max
= a
new
,

max
=
new
7 endif
8 endfor
Fig. 3. Pseudocode of directed selected mapping for MIMO OFDM. The function max returns the maximum and the
corresponding index. Line Opt is optional.
July 19, 2007 DRAFT
FIGURES 19
(
n
o
n

o
v
e
r
l
a
p
p
i
n
g
)
d
S
L
M
d
S
L
M
(
o
v
e
r
l
a
p
p
i
n
g
)
S
L
M
time
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
2 3 7
5 9 10
1 2
1
9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 2 3 4 5 6
A
1 2
1
3 4
3
4
2 3
4
5
6 7
6
5
4 5
6
8
7
6 7
8
8
= N
t
1
A
= N
t
1
10
9
8
7 6
7
8
9 8
7
6
5 4
5
6
7 6
5
4
3 2
3
4
5 4
3
2
1
1
2
3 2 1
1
A
1 2 3 4 5 6
a
a
a
Fig. 4. Delay proles of (from top to bottom) original SLM and the SISO dSLM approaches (non-overlapping and
overlapping hyper frames). The hyper frame length is chosen to N
t
= 4 and an innite computational processing speed is
assumed. Medium size black lines represent the evaluation of U, bold black lines of N
t
U candidates either by the SLM
or dSLM algorithm Figs. 1 and 3. White, gray, mixed blocks: OFDM frames in frequency domain, time domain, and both
domains.
July 19, 2007 DRAFT
FIGURES 20
7 8 9 10 11
10
5
10
4
10
3
10
2
10
1
10
0


10 log
10
(
0
) [dB]
P
r

>

original
dSLM
oSLM
theory
U = 4
U = 16
Fig. 5. Ccdf of PAR for MIMO OFDM with dSLM and oSLM. D = 512 carriers, N
T
= 4 antennas, U = 4, 16 candidate
vectors. Rightmost curve: MIMO OFDM without PAR reduction; Gray: theoretical curves assuming Gaussian time-domain
samples.
July 19, 2007 DRAFT
FIGURES 21


7 8 9 10 11
10
5
10
4
10
3
10
2
10
1
10
0




10 log
10
(
0
) [dB]
P
r

>

original
dSLM
oSLM
theory
N
T
= 2
N
T
= 4
N
T
= 8
Fig. 6. Ccdf of PAR for MIMO OFDM with dSLM and oSLM. D = 512 carriers, N
T
= 2, 4, and 8 antennas, U = 4
candidate vectors. Rightmost curves: MIMO OFDM without PAR reduction. Gray: theoretical curves assuming Gaussian
time-domain samples.
July 19, 2007 DRAFT
FIGURES 22
7 8 9 10 11
10
5
10
4
10
3
10
2
10
1
10
0


10 log
10
(
0
) [dB]
P
r

>

original
dSLM
oSLM
theory
4PSK
16QAM
64QAM
Fig. 7. Ccdf of PAR for MIMO OFDM with dSLM and oSLM. 4PSK (stars), 16QAM (circles), and 64QAM (boxes)
signaling. D = 512, N
T
= 4, U = 4. Rightmost curves: MIMO OFDM without PAR reduction. Gray: theoretical curves
assuming Gaussian time-domain samples.
July 19, 2007 DRAFT
FIGURES 23
7 8 9 10 11
10
5
10
4
10
3
10
2
10
1
10
0


10 log
10
(
0
) [dB]
P
r

>

original
dSLM-no
dSLM-o
theory
U = 4
U = 8
N
t
= 1
N
t
= 4
N
t
= 8
Fig. 8. Ccdf of PAR of original SLM (N
t
= 1) and non-ovarlapping and overlapping SISO dSLM. D = 512 and 4PSK.
Gray: theoretical curves assuming Gaussian time-domain samples.
July 19, 2007 DRAFT
FIGURES 24


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
7
8
9
10
11
1
0
l
o
g
1
0
(

t
h
)
[
d
B
]

U
N
t

Fig. 9. Contour plot of

th
at clipping probability Pr
c
= 10
4
over U and N
t
derived from the theoretical expression
(13); the trajectory of steepest descent is depicted, too.
July 19, 2007 DRAFT
TABLES 25
TABLE I
PAIRS (U, N
t
) FOR ACHIEVING A GIVEN CLIPPING LEVEL Pr
c
= 10
4
, 10
6
, AND 10
8
AT (APPROXIMATELY) THE
SAME THRESHOLD
th
(ALSO GIVEN IN DB) IN BOTH, DSLM AND CONVENTIONAL SLM.
SLM U 8 16 32 64
dSLM (U, N
t
) (4, 3) (6, 4) (10, 7) (16, 11)
Pr
c
= 10
4
8.75 dB 8.30 dB 7.82 dB 7.53 dB
dSLM (U, N
t
) (4, 3) (6, 4) (9, 7) (14, 10)
Pr
c
= 10
6
9.09 dB 8.54 dB 7.98 dB 7.69 dB
dSLM (U, N
t
) (4, 3) (6, 4) (8, 6) (13, 10)
Pr
c
= 10
8
9.38 dB 8.73 dB 8.24 dB 7.78 dB
July 19, 2007 DRAFT