Professional Documents
Culture Documents
i=
!b+
1
i
'
i=I
,
... ,N
(1)
and its conditional probability distribution fnction is
P (
i
1
!,
b)
=
n!
R exp
( - 11
i
-
!b11
2
)
(2)
where
i and
!
for all
i = 1, ... , N. Therefore, the DLC scheme has the optimal
decoding performance. However, directly implementing
the original DLC scheme proposed by [5] imposes
prohibitively high computational complexity because it
involves a division, summations of exponential fnctions,
and logarithmic operations per each LLR value.
(3)
The complexity can be reduced by using max-Iog
MAP approximation [10]: 10gLi
exp
ai maxiai , at the
expense of some degradation in decoding performance.
The resulting LLR for hi is
(4)
Combining of the LLR can also be done in the symbol
level by using extended version of MRC scheme in
MIMO to HARQ, known as Symbol Level Combining
(SLC) [9]. Similar to DLC scheme, we can use
approximation to calculate the LLR,
(5)
2010 Interational Symposium on Intelligent Signal Processing ad Communication Systems (lSP ACS 2010) December 6-8, 2010
I
- N [ , -
- 2
( N [ )
where ! = L
i
=
I
!!
and
N =
! L
i
=l! i .
Furthermore, this approach not only simplifes LLR
calculation but also reduces the complexity of the SLC
_ I
scheme by removing the needs to calculate H
- 2
, the
square root inverse of combined channel matrix [5].
Another method to combine LLR is done in bit level or
Bit Level Combining (BLC). This method is practically
simpler to implement and provides fexibility to be used in
HARQ-IR. But it sufers fom slight performance
degradation because it neglects the fact that the same
transmit signal vector is repeatedly reused, contrary to
DLC schemes. We can derived the BLC scheme fom
DLC scheme by interchanging the order of summation
and minimization and frther simplif the algorithm using
the approximation that we have used before. The LLR of
BLC then becomes
LLRprox
)
. L7=1 [ m
i
ng(o)e x
O
)
{11i
-
!
s(O
)
11
2}
m
i
ng(l
)e x
[t
)
{
l
1i
-
!
S(
I)
In ]
(6)
B. Performance Gap
As stated previously, the simplifcation of LLR
combining algorithm can lead to some performance
degradation compared to the direct method. We measure
this gap in CTC in various modulation to verif that the
performance gap can be negligible compared to CTC's
coding gain. The results is shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Proposed vs Direct LLR calculation (CTC-1I2)
Modulation Avg. Performance Degradation
4-QM 0.1 dB
16-QM 0.15 dB
64-QM 0.2 dB
C Computational Compleit
The conventional LLR combining scheme directly
calculate LLR fom (3) and use Convolutional Coding
(CC), which is popular channel coding scheme with low
complexity implementation. The use of approximation as
we described in previous analysis will cause performance
degradation, especially in the channel decoder output. To
overcome this, we applied Convolutional Turbo Coding
(CTC) which has higher complexity but offers better
decoding performance and more robust to suboptimal
decoding implementation [10]. CTC is also a mandatory
feature for WiMAX System Profle Certifcation Test
[11]. The comparison of direct implementation with CC
and simplifed implementation with CTC, both using
memory order M = 2 [13], is presented below.
Table 2. Complexity of LLR combining (direct) with CC
Convolutional Coding (CC) with Viterbi
Process P Equivalent Addition
Branch Metric Calc 6(2AM)
Path Metric Calc 4(2AM)
Hard Decision O
Overall Complexity 10(2JM)+3
HARQ LLR Combining (direct) per Nt Symbol processed
Process P Equivalent Addition
Distance Calculator 6O
Normalization 2
Constellation LUT 12
QR-Decomposition 45 (SLC only)
Direct LLR Combining with CC M = 2
Total Operation 43 +l17 + 10K)Nt
4-QM; 6 = 4; Nt = 2 DJ
16-QAM; 6 = 16; Nt = 2 l OJ
64-QM; 6 = 64; Nt = 2
ODJ
O
e
w
-
u
m
O
4P| V6PbK0I
T
0
..
T
,
,
,
,
1
,
,
Z J 4 5 b
C [0C]
!b| V6P bK0I
T
dt
'
'
*
\
\
\
\
\
E
T
3
^
! TZ T4 !b
C [CL]
b4P| |60L JKI
Tb T Z ZZ
C [CL]
-CIml6 LLL*L1L
--CImpl6 CLL*L1L
--CImpl6 CLL*L1L
--- LI|6C! LLL*LL
--- LI|6C! LL*LL
-+- LI|6C! CLL*LL
Fig. 3. Comparison of HRQ Implementation Results
In 4-QAM modulation, PER around 1 % or 10-
2
is
achieved by the simplifed DLC scheme when SNR is 3
dB in high mobility. To achieve the same PER, the direct
DLC with CC needs 5 dB SNR. The trends continue in
higher modulation, for example 16-QAM, when PER less
than 10-
2
is achieved when SNR is 11 dB and 16 dB by
simplifed and direct method, respectively. The SNR
margin is mainly created by CTC implementation as
channel decoder. Not only compensate the performance
gap of the simplifed scheme, CTC also give better
performance, although increase complexity in ret. This
paradox is careflly exploited by the proposed simplifed
scheme, which has signifcant advantage along with
increasement in modulation order.
By using direct implementation scheme, the DLC and
SLC can achieve same performance results, while BLC
has signifcant performance gap as previously analyzed in
chapter III. However, the case is slightly diferent in
simplifed implementation scheme. Because of the
approximation, the performance of DLC and SLC is not
exactly the same, while the performance gap of BLC is
smaller than when direct implementation is used. In all
cases, the best performance is given by the DLC scheme,
followed by the SLC and BLC scheme. Nevertheless, the
SLC still has advantage in terms of buffer size [5] and
BLC can also be used for HARQ-IR. Therefore, the best
implementation scheme still depends on how the systems
will be deployed.
5. CONCLUSION
This paper proposed simplifed implementation of
MIMO-HARQ with LLR combining method. With simple
approximation and by using Convolutional Turbo Coding
(CTC) as channel coding scheme, the proposed scheme
can achieve better results in term of packet error rate than
direct implementation scheme using Convolutional
Coding (CC). The proposed scheme also has lower
complexity, especially in large modulation size such as
16-QAM and 64-QAM. Better results theoretically can be
achieved with pairing CTC with direct implementation of
the LLR combining. But it is not practical because the
complexity of receiver will be increased signifcantly, thus
making the proposed scheme becomes better choice for
implementation.
REFERENCES
[1] S. Lin, D. J. Costello. Jr., and M. 1. Miller, "Automatic
repeat-request error-control schemes," IEEE Commun.
Mag., vol. 22, Dec. 1984.
[2] D. Chase, "Code combining - a maimum-likelihood
decoding approach for combining an arbitrary number of
noisy packets," IEEE Trans. Commun., May 1985.
[3] D. Toumpakaris, J. Lee, A. Matache, and H. Lou,
"Performance of MIMO HARQ under receiver complexity
constraints," IEEE GLOBECOM, 2008.
[4] IEEE Std 802.l6-2004/Corl-2005,Amendment 2, Feb. 2006.
[5] E. Jang, 1. Lee, H. Lou, and J. M. Ciof, "On the combining
schemes for MIMO systems with hybrid ARQ," IEEE
Transactions on Wireless Communications, Feb. 2009.
[6] WiMA Forum Mobile System Profle, 2008.
[7] A. Paulraj, R. Nabar, and D. Gore, Introduction to Space
Time Wireless Communications, Cambridge Press. 2003.
[8] E. N. Onggosanusi, A. G. Dabak, Y. Hui, and G. Jeong,
"Hybrid ARQ transmission and combining for MIMO
systems," in Proc. IEEE International Conrence on
Communications 2003, May 2003.
[9] J. Lee, D. Toumpakaris, E. W. Jang, H. Lou, and 1. M.
Ciof, "Transceiver design for wireless systems via MIMO
Hybrid ARQ," IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 47,
pp. 32-40, Jan. 2009.
[10] A. Salbiyono, et. aI., "CTC Decoder for Mobile WiMA
with HARQ Support," Proc. The 5th International
Conference TSSA, 2009.
[11] A. Vasquez, E. Antelo, "Implementation of Exponential
Function in Floating Point Unit," Journal of VLSI Sig.
Processing, Springer, 2003.