Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
I. I NTRODUCTION
With the evolution of the wireless communication systems,
traditional single-input single-output (SISO) transmission can
not satisfy the high data rate and spectral efficiency requirements of the next generation wireless communication
systems. To increase the transmission capacity, the multipleinput multiple-output (MIMO) system has been proposed, but
the need for a high-performance and low-complexity MIMO
detector becomes an important issue. The maximum likelihood
(ML) detector is known to be an optimal detector; however,
it is impractical for implementation owing to its great computational complexity. Addressing this problem, researchers
have proposed tree-based search algorithms, such as sphere
decoding [1] and K-Best decoding [2], to reduce the complexity with near-optimal performance, but their computational
complexities are still very high. On the other hand, linear
methods, such as zero-forcing (ZF) and minimum mean square
error (MMSE) detectors, and non-linear methods, like ordered
successive interference cancellation (OSIC) detectors, have
lower complexities, but they fail to achieve full diversity gain.
The lattice-reduction-aided (LRA) detection technique [3] has
been proposed as a solution featuring full diversity gain and
acceptable complexity. The lattice reduction (LR) transforms
the channel matrix into a more orthogonal one by finding a
better basis for the same lattice so as to improve the diversity
gain of the MIMO detector.
The Lenstra-Lenstra-Lovasz (LLL) algorithm is a wellknown LR algorithm for its polynomial execution time. However, its variable execution time is a significant problem for
real-time implementation in the MIMO Rayleigh fading channel [4]. A literature have already proposed a fixed complexity
(1)
nr
1451
Asilomar 2009
r = Hr T has the
are integers) such that a more orthogonal H
same lattice as Hr . Then, the signal model becomes
287387457VXFKWKDW+7 45DQG
,QLWLDOL]H4 45 57 3
r T1 xr + nr = H
r s + nr .
y
r = Hr xr + nr = H
N =
ZKLOHN < 1
IRUS = N !
5 S N
5 S S
LI
5 S N 5 S S
5 S N
7 N 7 S
7 N
HQG
HQG
E D
5N N
5N N
D =
DQGE =
5N N N
5N N N
5N N N 1
5N N N 1
4 N N +
4 N N
N
PD[ ^N `
HOVH
N +
N
HQG
HQG
by
Hr = Qr R r ,
(3)
(4)
where QH
r nr is white Gaussian noise that experiences a
rotation corresponding to an orthonormal matrix. This formation is applied in many MIMO detection algorithms, e.g.,
QR-based successive iterative cancellation (QR-SIC) and Kbest algorithms. In addition, a column-norm-based sorted QR
decomposition (SQRD) [8] is often employed because it not
only enhances detection performance but also reduces the
computational complexity of the lattice reduction [9].
III. L ATTICE R EDUCTION
A lattice L is defined as {t1 hr1 + t2 hr2 + ... +
tN hrN |t1 ...tN Z }, where {hr1 , ..., hrN R n } are the
basis vectors and N equals m. The LR algorithm aims to find
a unimodular matrix T (|detT| = 1 and all elements of T
(5)
1452
287387457VXFKWKDW+7 45
,QLWLDOL]H4 45 57 367$*( GHVLUHGVWDJHQXPEHU1ELW59&
S
FOHDUWKHQWK///59&UHJLVWHU
%(5
5Q Q
5Q Q
LI
5S Q
5S Q 5S S
7Q
7Q 7S
HQG
QR/DWWLFHUHGXFWLRQ
///
///IL[HGORRSV
&7///VWDJH
/RZFRPSOH[LW\&7///VWDJH
VHWWKHQWK///59&UHJLVWHU
E D
5Q Q
5Q Q
D =
DQGE =
5Q Q Q
5Q Q Q
615G%
S
LIS >= S
S +
HOVHS
HQG
HQG
HOVHLIQ == S
S
S +
HQG
HOVHLIQ == S
%(5
S
S +
HQG
HQG
HQG
QR/DWWLFHUHGXFWLRQ
///
///IL[HGORRSV
&7///VWDJH
/RZFRPSOH[LW\&7///VWDJH
5 S S
34LI
5 S Q 5 S S
5 S Q
7 Q 7 S
7 Q
HQG
615G%
HQG
HQG
1453
N
///5HGXFWLRQ&KHFNZLWK9LRODWLRQ5HVXOW
///5HGXFWLRQ&KHFNZLWK1RQ9LRODWLRQ5HVXOW
1R///5HGXFWLRQ&KHFN
N
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5
5 5 5
5 5
5
N
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5
5 5 5
5 5
5
N
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5
5 5 5
5 5
5
N
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5
5 5 5
5 5
5
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5
5 5 5
5 5
5
N
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5
5 5 5
5 5
5
N 1
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5
5 5 5
5 5
5
(a)
)XOO6L]H
5HGXFWLRQ
V HYHQSDLUV
S
V RGGSDLUV
S
V HYHQSDLUV
S
V 67$*(
S
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5
5 5 5
5 5
5
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5
5 5 5
5 5
5
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5
5 5 5
5 5
5
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5
5 5 5
5 5
5
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5
5 5 5
5 5
5
(b)
V HYHQSDLUV
V RGGSDLUV
S
S
59& 59&
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5
5 5 5
5 5
5
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5
5 5 5
5 5
5
V HYHQSDLUV
V RGGSDLUV
S
S
59& 59&
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5
5 5 5
5 5
5
V 67$*(
S
59&
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5
5 5 5
5 5
5
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5 5
5 5 5 5
5 5 5
5 5
5
(c)
Fig. 3: (a) The LLL algorithm, (b) the constant-throughput LLL algorithm, and (c) the low-complexity constant-throughput
LLL algorithm.
TABLE I: Average Computational Complexity of Lattice Reduction Algorithms for 44 MIMO detection.
Algorithm
LLL (average)
LLL Fixed 40 loop
CT-LLL, Stage=11
Low-Complexity
CT-LLL, Stage=11
Addition
346.12
335.56
297.15
Multiplication
521.34
431.25
511.59
Division
75.20/188207
72.31
49.15
Square Root
5.23
5.04
5.08
Total
947.89
844.16
863
245.34(82.5%)
408.41(79.8%)
32.34(65.8%)
5.08(100%)
691.17(80%)
TABLE II: Average Computational Complexity of Lattice Reduction Algorithms for 88 MIMO detection.
Algorithm
LLL
LLL, Fixed 190 loops
CT-LLL, Stage=25
Low-Complexity
CT-LLL, Stage=25
Addition
2046.6
2044.7
1341.7
Multiplication
2709.7
2705.5
2289.3
Division
364.1
363.7
211.85
Square Root
12.17
12.16
11.92
Total
5132.6
5126.1
3854.8
1029.50(76.73%)
1665.44(72.75%)
104.73(49.44%)
11.92(100%)
2811.6(72.94%)
V. S IMULATION R ESULTS
In this section, we compare the conventional LLL algorithm,
CT-LLL algorithm and the proposed low-complexity CT-LLL
algorithm in terms of computational complexity and BER
performance. We simulate the LRA-MIMO detections based
on the MIMO system described in Section II, and we employ
sorted QR decomposition for the preprocessing in all MIMO
1454
%(5
VI. C ONCLUSION
=)
/RZFRPSOH[LW\&7///VWDJH =)
&7///VWDJH =)
///=)
456,&
/RZFRPSOH[LW\&7///VWDJH 456,&
///456,&
.EHVW.
/RZFRPSOH[LW\&7///VWDJH .EHVW.
///.EHVW.
615G%
In this paper, we propose a low-complexity, constantthroughput LLL algorithm for real-time LRA-MIMO detection. Both effective size reduction and parallel LLL reduction
can prevent the variable iteration time with approximately the
same complexity as the original LLL algorithm. Since the CTLLL algorithm yields many redundant LLL-reduction check
operations, both LLL-reduction violation check and scarce
LLL reduction indication can further reduce the complexity to
80% and 72.94% of the original LLL algorithm for 4 4 and
8 8 MIMO systems. Therefore, we believe that the proposed
low-complexity CT-LLL algorithm offers a solid basis for the
implementation of a real-time LRA-MIMO detector. We will
investigate this aspect in our future work.
R EFERENCES
%(5
=)
/RZFRPSOH[LW\&7///VWDJH =)
&7///VWDJH =)
///=)
456,&
/RZFRPSOH[LW\&7///VWDJH 456,&
///456,&
.EHVW.
/RZFRPSOH[LW\&7///VWDJH .EHVW.
///.EHVW.
615G%
1455