Sie sind auf Seite 1von 5

Distributed Turbo Coding Using Log-Likelihood Thresholding

for Cooperative Communications


Ghaleb Al-Habian

, Ali Ghrayeb

, Mazen Hasna

and Adnan Abu-Dayya

ECE Dept, Concordia Univ, Montreal, Quebec, Canada

EE Dept, Qatar University, Doha, Qatar


{g alhabi,aghrayeb}@ece.concordia.ca,{hasna,adnan}@qu.edu.qa
Abstract
1
In cooperative communications, error propagation
at relays reduces the diversity order of the system. To combat that
effect, we present a novel technique to control error propagation
at the relays, which is presented in the context of a relay
cooperating with a source to communicate with a destination
using a turbo code. The relay calculates log-likelihood ratio
(LLR) values for the bits sent from the source. These value are
subjected to a threshold to selectively forward bits that are most
reliable and discard bits that are less so, resulting in less errors
propagating to the destination. We derive upper bounds on the
bit-error rates for our proposed system and use them to optimize
the threshold at the relay, showing that our system provides a
better trade off between prevented errors and blocked correct
bits. We compare our scheme with controlling error propagation
using only a cyclic redundancy code(CRC) check at the relay,
forwarding analog LLR values, and employing no error control
at the relay at all. Based on system simulations, we show that our
proposed scheme provides a signicant diversity gain compared
to other techniques.
I. INTRODUCTION
Cooperative communications have recently emerged to
achieve diversity in faded wireless links, namely, cooperative
diversity. Early works on cooperative communications sug-
gested two modes of operation for a cooperating relay [1]:
amplify-and-forward (AF)where the relay just amplies the
signal (subject to a power constraint) without decoding it and
forwards it to the destination, and decode-and-forward (DF)
where the relay detects and demodulates the signal and then
re-modulates it and forwards it to the destination. While DF is
prone to error propagation due to decoding errors, AF requires
the destination to have full channel state information (CSI) of
the source-relay and relay-destination channels.
More Recently, a few other relaying protocols were proposed
such as estimate-and-forward (EF), and compress-and-forward
(CF) [2], and bit-by-bit thresholding [3]. These protocols were
shown to improve the end-to-end performance. However, all
of these protocols where designed and analyzed for the case
of uncoded transmission, often called memoryless relaying,
where no channel coding was used at any point in the
transmission.
Schemes that use channel coding in cooperative systems are
usually called distributed coding schemes; examples of which
include coded cooperation [4], and distributed turbo coding
1
This work was supported in part by a 3G project funded by Qatar Telecom
(Qtel), and NSERC Grant N00858
(DTC) [5], [6]. Previous work that discussed distributed coding
over relay channels often assumed error-free relaying that
the relay can make correct decisions on the bits received and
hence is forwarding correct code bits [5], [6]. This assumption
is impractical, since even small error rates at the relay will
reduce the diversity gain and might cause an error oor in end-
to-end bit error rate [6]. A number of remedies were proposed
for relay networks utilizing channel coding, ranging from a
simple cyclic redundancy code (CRC) check at the relay [4];
preventing it from forwarding if CRC fails. However, a single
error in a coded frame would trigger a CRC failure at the
relay, and hinder a signicant number of correct bits to pass
on to the destination. Alternatively, the authors in [6], [7],
propose to calculate a reliability measure of received bits and
forward that to the destination along with the bits. This grants
the destination some exibility in deciding on the bits. While
both use the log-likelihood ratio (LLR) as that measure, the
authors in [6] assumes the relay can transmit these LLRs as
unconstrained analog values to the destination. The authors in
[7] display a rate of expansion of as much as 3 bits per code
bit to relay a quantized value of that measure; that in addition
to extra processing at both the relay and destination.
In this paper, we propose to calculate LLRs for bits received
at the relay, and then forwarding only reliable, hard-decided
bits to the destination. We establish reliability of the bits by
means of a threshold at the relay. We derive upper bounds
on the end-to-end bit error rate of the system under general
conditions and show the impact of a threshold on such bit
error rate. Consequently, we nd the optimum threshold to be
set at the relay based on minimizing bit error rate. The result
of which is minimizing error propagation at the relay while
gaining signicant diversity at the destination. Using computer
simulations, we show the performance of our technique oper-
ating in a DTC context under various conditions. We also show
the performance of other techniques used (described earlier)
under the same conditions, demonstrating the strength of the
proposed technique vis- a-vis other techniques.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. Section II
presents the system model and then describes the operation
of the system throughout different stages of the cooperation
strategy. Section III analyzes the performance of the system.
Section IV discusses optimizing the threshold with minimum
end-to-end bit error rate as a target. Section V presents
simulation results, and Section VI concludes the paper.
1005 978-1-4244-2941-7/08/$25.00 2008 IEEE Asilomar 2008
Authorized licensed use limited to: QATAR UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on December 27, 2009 at 04:15 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
II. PROPOSED SYSTEM
The design of the system presented next aims at enabling
the use of our remedy in a coded cooperative scenario. In
our system, the source encodes N information bits using a
serially-concatenated convolutional code (SCCC), with two
recursive systematic convolutional (RSC) codes as constituent
encoders (denoted by E
1
, E
2
for the outer and inner encoders,
respectively). A complete system diagram is shown in Fig. 1.
Following the denitions on the diagram, let b = [b
1
, . . . , b
N
]
be the frame of information bits to be encoded, where bits
take values {1}, and p = [p
1
, . . . , p
N
] be the parity bits
added by E
1
. Hence c = [c
1
, . . . , c
2N
] = [b
1
, p
1
. . . , b
N
, p
N
]
will be the output of E
1
. As shown in the diagram, u = (c)
or the interleaved c, and is the input to E
2
. Similarly, let
l = [l
1
, . . . , l
2N
] be the parity bits added by E
2
. Hence, the
output of E
2
is x = [x
1
, . . . , x
4N
] = [u
1
, l
1
, . . . , u
2N
, l
2N
].
For the rest of the paper, we assume the modulation used
throughout is binary phase shift keying (BPSK). Although the
scheme is expandable to multiple relays, we assume a single
cooperating relay to simplify the analysis. The output of the
SCCC is transmitted by the source over two successive stages:
The broadcast stage, followed by the cooperation stage.
A. The Broadcast Stage
During this stage, the source transmits a punctured version
of x to both the destination and relay. We elect to use a code
rate equal to R
c1
=
1
3
, which is accomplished by transmitting
one of the systematic bits and both code bits in x (3 bits
per information bit). Thus, the modulated signal transmitted
from the source is expressed as {y[n]} = {l
1
, u
2
, l
2
, l
3
, . . .}.
During this stage, the signals received at the destination and
the cooperating relay can be expressed as
r
SD
[n] =
_
R
c1
E
b
h
SD
[n]y[n] +n
SD
[n], (1)
r
SR
[n] =
_
R
c1
E
b
h
SR
[n]y[n] +n
SR
[n], (2)
where n = 1, 2, . . . , N/R
c1
, r
SD
and r
SR
are the signals
received at the destination and the relay, respectively, h
SD
and h
SR
are the fading coefcients for the source-destination
and source-relay channels, respectively, E
b
is the energy
transmitted per bit from the source, n
SD
and n
SR
are complex
white Gaussian noise (AWGN) signals with per-dimension
power N
0
/2.
At the relay, a SISO decoder is used (D
2
, here a maximum a
posteriori decoder, otherwise known as a MAP decoder) which
is matched to E
2
to obtain soft estimates of u, denoted by
L
u
. Specically, these soft estimates are log-likelihood ratios
(LLRs), formally dened in (3).
L
ui
= log
e
P (u
i
= 1|h
SR
, r
SR
)
P (u
i
= 0|h
SR
, r
SR
)
, (3)
LLRs are used as reliability measures of the individual bits;
increasing in absolute value as the reliability of the bit in-
creases.
B. The Cooperation Stage
In this stage, the source transmits to the destination u. Thus,
the code rate for this stage is R
c2
=
1
2
. The relay has from
the previous stage soft estimates of u. Consequently, the relay
can either: forward hard decisions based on the sign of the
soft estimates (which is simple DF), run a CRC check over
the frame (discarding the frame if CRC failed, cf. [4]), forward
the LLRs (after normalizing their power) to the destination, or
employ a threshold T such that the relay transmits only bits
that have associated LLRs with absolute value exceeding a
threshold value. To prevent correct bits from being blocked, we
set the threshold to operate only after a CRC check fails, such
that no bits are blocked when we know the frame has been
successfully decoded. The relay then stays silent (transmits
zero energy) in place of the unreliable bits, and the hard
decisions of the reliable ones. We note here that we assume the
relay does not allocate the energy of the unreliable bits (which
are nulled) to the reliable ones, effectively lowering the total
transmit power. For reason of tractability of the analysis we
ignore this effect. During this stage, we can express the signals
received at the destination from the source and relay as
r
SD
[n] =
_
R
c2
E
b
/2h
SD
[n]u[n] +n
SD
[n], (4)
r
RD
[n] =
_
R
c2
E
b
/2h
RD
[n] u[n] +n
RD
[n], (5)
respectively, where n = N/R
c1
+ 1, N/R
c1
+
2, . . . , (N/R
c1
+N/R
c2
), and with variable denitions
similar to that for (1) and (2). u[n] is the modulated output
of the relay, u[n] is the modulated output of the source. We
divide E
b
by 2 to maintain a constant energy per bit across
both stages.
C. Decoding At The Destination
The destination receives both the broadcast stage frame (1),
and the cooperation stage frames (4)-(5). It then combines the
two copies of the cooperation stage frame using maximum
ratio combining (MRC). We remark that since the frame
received from the relay can contain incorrect bits, MRC
combining can be constructive or destructive for the bit in
question. However, as the energy contributed from the wrong
bit begins to increase, the total energy will reach zero after
which further increase in the wrong bits energy will not have
an impact on the probability of error. We use this concept in
system analysis in the next section.
The destination then multiplexes the combined frame with
the broadcast stage frame to get the complete coded frame.
Afterward, an iterative decoder (described in detail in [8],)
decodes the frame and produces the information bits. See Fig.
1 for a complete diagram of the system. Consequently, using
such a setup will increase the overall system code rate to
1
(1/Rc
1
)+(1/Rc
2
)
= 1/5. We remark that the use our proposed
technique is not limited to DTC schemes, since it is potentially
applicable in other distributed coding scenarios as well.
Throughout this paper, we assume all receiving nodes have
perfect knowledge of CSI. We also simulate the system
assuming Rayleigh-faded channels, with the source-destination
1006
Authorized licensed use limited to: QATAR UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on December 27, 2009 at 04:15 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Fig. 1. System block diagram,E
1
, E
2
are the constituent encoders, D
2
is a SISO decoder matched to E
2
, and is an interleaver
and relay-destination channels exhibiting quasi-static fading
and the source-relay channel exhibiting block fading.
III. PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS
To analyze the performance of our system, we derive upper
bounds on the end-to-end bit error rate. Referring to (1),(4),
and (5), the instantaneous received SNR at the output of the
multiplexer at the destination can be expressed as (cf. [9])

D
[n] =
_
2R
c1

SD
[n] +R
c2

SD
[n] +A[n]R
c2

RD
[n]
_
+
,
(6)
where ()
+
denotes the bigger of the contents of the parenthe-
ses and zero, n is the discrete time index for the total period of
both stages,
SD
[n] =
E
b
N0
|h
SD
[n]|
2
,
RD
[n] =
E
b
N0
|h
RD
[n]|
2
and A[n] distinguishes a wrong decoded bit from a correct
one, formally dened as
A[n] =
_
+1, u[n] = u[n]
1, u[n] = u[n]
. (7)
Since we assumed quasi-static fading for the SD and RD
channels,
SD
[n] =
SD
,
RD
[n] =
RD
. Hence, assuming
an all-zero codeword was transmitted, the probability of the
destination decoding a codeword of weight d bits (also called
the pairwise error probability, or PEP),conditioned over the
instantaneous SNRs
SD
,
RD
, can be found as
P (d|
SD
,
RD
) = Q
__

{n}d

D
[n]
_
. (8)
We split d into d
1
+d
2
= d, where d
1
, d
2
refer to the weight of
the error event during the rst and second stage, respectively.
Since the relay is contributing only during the second stage,
we can split d
2
= d
r
+ d

, where d
r
indicates the weight of
bits(in the error event) receiving contribution from the relay
during the second stage, and d

equals to the number of bits


receiving contribution from the source only during the second
stage; due to possible bits being nulled at the relay.
Since the relay can forward wrong bits, we further split d
r
=
d
c
+d
e
, where d
c
, d
e
equal to the number of bits correctly and
wrongly relayed from the relay in the error event, respectively.
The expression in (8) can be expanded as
P (d|
SD
,
RD
, d
c
, d
e
) =
Q
_

_
(2d
1
R
c1
+d
2
R
c2
)
SD
+ (d
c
d
e
) R
c2

RD
_
+
_
. (9)
Observing the piece-wise nature of P (d|
SD
,
RD
), we
need to evaluate the conditional PEP for different values of

SD
,
RD
, d
c
, d
e
, namely
P (d|
SD
,
RD
, d
c
, d
e
) =

Q(0) =
1
2
, d
e
> d
c
and

RD
>
SD
Q
_
_
()
_
, otherwise,
(10)
where is dened as
=
2d
1
R
c1
+d
2
R
c2
d
e
R
c2
d
c
R
c2
. (11)
To obtain the average PEP, we integrate (9) over the
joint PDF of (
SD
,
RD
). Assuming that the fades ex-
perienced by source-destination and relay-destination chan-
nels are independent, p

() =
1

exp
_


_
,
SD
=
E
b
N0
E
hSD
_
|h
SD
|
2
_
,
RD
=
E
b
N0
E
hRD
_
|h
RD
|
2
_
Without going into the details of the derivation (we refer the
interested reader to [10] for the complete proof), (9) becomes,
by substituting Craigs formula for the Q function (cf. [9]),
integrating over the PDFs and some algebraic manipulation
P(d|d
c
, d
e
) =

_
/2
0

(1+s1 )(1+)
d +
1
2
1
1+
, d
c
< d
e
1

_
/2
0
_
1
1+s1
__
1
1+s2
_
d, d
c
d
e
,
(12)
where s
1
, s
2
are dened as
s
1
=
(2d
1
R
c1
+ (d
2
) R
c2
)
2 sin
2

, s
2
=
(d
c
d
e
) R
c2
2 sin
2

,
respectively. We note from (12) that the PEP can tend to a
constant, given that d
e
> d
c
, as tends to . We also observe
that in all cases where d
e
> 0 the resultant PEP will increase.
1007
Authorized licensed use limited to: QATAR UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on December 27, 2009 at 04:15 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Note that the PEP expression given in (12) is conditional on
d
e
, d
c
(or d
e
, d
r
: d
r
= d
c
+d
e
) which are specic to a group
of error events of weight d. Thus, we need to sum the PEP over
the probability of an error word of weight d having d
r
, d
c
, d
e
as components, as
P(d) =
d2

dr=0
dr

de=0
P(d|d
e
, d
r
= d
c
+d
e
)p
de
(d
e
)p
dr
(d
r
).
(13)
Assuming a uniform distribution of relayed/error bits over the
forwarded frame, the PDF functions for d
r
, d
e
are equal to
p
dr
(d
r
) =
_
d2
dr
__
2Nd2
dRdr
_
_
2N
dR
_ , p
de
(d
e
) =
_
dr
de
__
dRdr
dEde
_
_
dR
dE
_ , (14)
where d
R
, d
E
represent the total number of forwarded bits
from the relay and the number of which are wrong, respec-
tively. Finally, assuming maximum-likelihood (ML) decoding
of the received codeword at the destination, the resultant bit
error rate can be upper-bounded by (cf. [9])
P
b
(e) <

d=dfree
N

i=1
i
N
_
N
i
_
p(d|i)P(d), (15)
where d
free
is the free Hamming distance of the SCCC, and
p(d|i) is the input/output weight distribution function of the
SCCC code.
IV. FINDING AN OPTIMUM THRESHOLD
Having analyzed the system for a given (d
E
, d
R
) combi-
nation, we now discuss setting a threshold at the relay to
achieve minimum end-to-end bit error rate at the destination.
We study the optimal threshold under the assumption that the
relay knows the positions of errors, and then we propose a
practical threshold relying only on the knowledge of CSI (of
the source-relay channel).
A. Genie-Aided Threshold
As a benchmark for any thresholding scheme, we assume
that for any given frame the relay knows the location of
errors. Although impractical, this assumption provides us with
a limiting case of thresholding. Given that the relay knows the
LLR values of all wrong bits, a threshold can be set as the
absolute value of any of these LLRs; preventing all but the
desired number of error to be forwarded. Let L
wrong
be the set
of bits that are known to be wrong, formally dened as
L
wrong
= {|L
u
[n]|}
n: u[n]=u[n]
Assuming L
wrong
is sorted in a decreasing order, we then
formally dene genie-aided thresholds as
T
0
= L
wrong
1
, T
1
= L
wrong
2
, T
2
= L
wrong
3
, . . . (16)
where T indicates the value of the LLR threshold, and the
sub-index indicates number of errors allowed to pass. The
question of optimality here is to choose the threshold that
results in minimum end-to-end bit error rate; keeping in mind
that allowing a few errors to pass also allows correct bits that
can contribute to overall performance.
The analysis of this case is beyond the scope of this paper, by
reason of its impracticality. We nevertheless present simulation
results in [10] that illustrate that the optimal choice in this case
would be allowing no errors to pass at all.
B. CSI-Based Threshold
Observing that the instantaneous PDF of the LLR values
at the relay depends on the underlying source-relay CSI. We
propose a metric that relies only on the CSI of the source-
relay channel. Denoted by Z, this metric is equal to the mean
source-relay channel energy during the transmission of the
current frame, formally dened as
Z =
R
c1
N
N/Rc
1

n=1
|h
SR
[n]|
2
.
We then set a threshold that is linearly proportional to Z as,
T
Z
= Z +. (17)
We establish in [10] that such a threshold guarantees a constant
source-relay bit error rate (with varying channel realizations),
and hence a constant false rejection rate as well. Hence, we
can model the resultant d
E
, d
C
as jointly independent binomial
random variables. And the resultant PEP at the destination is
expressed in (18)
P(d) =
N/Rc
2

dR=0
dR

dE=0
d2

dr=0
dr

de=0
_
P(d|d
e
, d
r
= d
c
+d
e
)
p
de
(d
e
|d
E
, d
R
)p
dr
(d
r
|d
R
)p
dE
(d
E
)p
dR
(d
R
)
_
, (18)
where p
dr
(d
r
|d
R
) and p
de
(d
e
|d
R
, d
E
) are dened in (14).
p
dE
(d
E
) and p
dC
(d
C
) are binomial distributed with success
rates

dE
N/Rc
2
and

dC
N/Rc
2
, respectively and number of trials
N/R
c2
. p
dR
(d
R
= d
C
+ d
E
) = p
dC
(d
C
) p
dE
(d
E
) where
denotes discrete convolution.
The last step in deriving the optimal threshold is establishing
the relationship between T
Z
and

d
E
,

d
R
. Since such a rela-
tionship will depend on the code used between the source and
relay (in our case, the inner constituent encoder of the SCCC),
and the type of decoder used at the relay we opt to nd this
relationship empirically. To choose the optimal threshold, we
need to select the
_

d
E
,

d
R
_
pair that minimizes end-to-end
bit error rate in (15) when the corresponding P(d) found in
(18) is used. In [10], we simulate the source-relay part of
the system under different values of
SR
, and , which
resulted in possible
_

d
E
,

d
C
_
pairs. Hence, we can select the
best combination of and in terms of minimum end-to-end
bit error rate. The optimal point of operation for both values of

SR
= 6, 9 dB were found to be = 0.5, = 3 for
SR
= 6
dB, and = 0.5, = 2.5 for
SR
= 9 dB.
V. SIMULATION RESULTS
We simulated the proposed system, implementing several
relaying protocols to compare their performances. Throughout
1008
Authorized licensed use limited to: QATAR UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on December 27, 2009 at 04:15 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
our simulations, the system encodes a frame of N = 100
information bits, with R
c1
= 1/3 and R
c2
= 1/2. The
constituent codes of the SCCC were (13, 17)
8
for the outer
code (E
1
), (27, 31)
8
for the inner code (E
2
), and the desti-
nation implemented an iterative decoder (see [8] for a block
diagram of a typical SCCC iterative decoder) running for 5
iterations. The source-relay channel was block-faded with 20
independently-faded blocks.
To illustrate the strength of our proposed system, we simulate
other protocols at the relay. Namely, employing only a CRC
check at the relay (referred to as simple CRC), forwarding ana-
log LLR values from the relay (adapting the implementation
in [6], and simple DF (without any error propagation control).
In addition, we also display the performance of the optimal
thresholds obtained previously (namely, (16) and (17)).
Simulation results are shown for
SR
= 6 dB in Fig.2. In
addition, the upper bound derived previously for the CSI-
based threshold is also plotted. Compared to simple CRC,
both threshold types display signicant gains, with the CSI-
based threshold displaying as much as 5 dB of gain over
simple CRC; albeit without much diversity gain. Also notable
is the error oor that is displayed when using analog-LLR
forwarding and simple DF, with the latter ooring at a value
an order of magnitude higher. Comparing both thresholds, we
can see a genie-aided threshold provides up to 5 dB gain over
the CSI-based threshold.
In Fig.3, we show simulated results for
SR
= 9 dB. We
note that both threshold types display higher gains compared
to simple CRC. The CSI-based threshold achieves both a
diversity gain and a coding gain over CRC. Analog LLR
relaying, however, achieves slightly better bit error rate ( 0.7
dB) but starts losing diversity at > 20 dB. Comparing
both thresholds, we can see the genie-aided threshold still
outperforms the proposed CSI-based threshold.
VI. CONCLUSION
In this paper, we have presented a novel technique to
mitigate error propagation in cooperative communications. Our
proposed system relied on soft estimates of bits, and used
them to block unreliable bits from being forwarded to the
destination. We developed upper bounds on the performance
of the system and showed that they converge to the actual
performance. We compared our technique with just using CRC
at the relay, with simple DF, and analog LLR forwarding and
displayed signicant improvement in diversity and bit error
rate. While analog LLR forwarding and simple DF caused
an error oor in the end-to-end bit error rate of the system,
CRC lost too much diversity by discarding the whole frame,
and our proposed technique was able to circumvent both
disadvantages.
REFERENCES
[1] D. Chen and J. N. Laneman, Modulation and demodulation for coop-
erative diversity in wireless systems, IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun.,
vol. 5, pp. 17851794, Jul. 2006.
[2] G. Kramer, M. Gastpar, and P. Gupta, Cooperative strategies and
capacity theorems for relay networks, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 51,
pp. 30373063, Sep. 2005.
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
10
6
10
5
10
4
10
3
10
2
10
1
10
0
in dB
E
n
d
-
t
o
-
e
n
d
B
E
R
simple DF
analog LLR relaying
Simple CRC
Bound on CSIbased threshold
CSIbased thresholding
genieaided Thresholding
Bound on errorfree relaying
error free relaying
Fig. 2. Bit error rate vs. , for
SR
xed at 6 dB. Analog LLR relaying
was implemented according to [6]
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
10
6
10
5
10
4
10
3
10
2
10
1
10
0
in dB
E
n
d
-
t
o
-
e
n
d
B
E
R
Simple DF
Simple CRC
analog LLR relaying
Bound on CSIbased threshold
CSIbased threshold
genieaided threshold
Bound on errorfree relaying
error free relaying
Fig. 3. Bit error rate vs. , for
SR
xed at 9 dB. Analog LLR relaying
was implemented according to [6]
[3] H. V. Khuong and H. Y. Kong, LLR-based decode-and-forward proto-
col for relay networks and closed-form ber expressions, IEICE Trans.
Fundamentals, vol. E89A, pp. 18321841, Jun. 2006.
[4] T. Hunter and A. Nosratinia, Diversity through coded cooperation,
IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 5, pp. 283289, Feb. 2006.
[5] B. Zhao and M. Valenti, Distributed turbo coded diversity for relay
channel, Electronics Letters, vol. 39, pp. 786787, May 2003.
[6] Y. Li, B. Vucetic, T. F. Wong, and M. Dohler, Distributed turbo coding
with soft information relaying in multihop relay networks, IEEE J. Sel.
Areas Commun., vol. 24, pp. 20402050, Nov. 2006.
[7] Y. Hairej, A. Darmawan, and H. Morikawa, Cooperative diversity using
soft decision and distributed decoding, in Proc. Mobile and Wireless
Communications Summit, Nagoya, Japan, Jul. 2007, pp. 15.
[8] T. M. Duman and A. Ghrayeb, Coding for MIMO Communication
Systems. New York: Wiley, 2008.
[9] M. Elturi, W. Hamouda, and A. Ghrayeb, A convolutional-based coded
cooperation scheme for relay channels, IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol.,
accepted for publication, May 2008.
[10] G. Al-Habian, A. Ghrayeb, M. Hasna, and A. Abu-Dayya, A novel
technique for mitigating error propagation in cooperative communication
networks, submitted to IEEE Trans. on Communications. [Online].
Available: http://users.encs.concordia.ca/g alhabi/jrnl.pdf
1009
Authorized licensed use limited to: QATAR UNIVERSITY. Downloaded on December 27, 2009 at 04:15 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen