Abstract
In this study, we seek to characterise the behaviour of Spatial modulation (SM) in
the multiple access scenario. By only activating a single transmit antenna for any
transmission, SM entirely avoids interchannel interference, requires no synchronisation
between the transmit antennas and a single radio frequency chain at the transmitter.
Most contributions thus far have only addressed aspects of SM for a pointtopoint
communication system. We propose a maximumlikelihood (ML) detector which can successfully
decode incoming data from multiple simultaneous transmissions and does not suffer
from the nearfar problem. We analyse the performance of the interferenceunaware
and interferenceaware detectors. We look at the behaviour of SM as the signaltointerferenceplusnoise
ratio goes to infinity and compare it to the complexity and cost equivalent singleinputmultipleoutput
(SIMO) system. Two systems are considered to be equivalent in terms of complexity
if their respective detection algorithms are of the same order in
Introduction
Multipleantenna systems are fast becoming a key technology for modern wireless systems. They offer improved error performance and higher data rates, at the expense of increased complexity and power consumption [1]. Spatial modulation (SM) is a recently proposed approach to multipleinputmultipleoutput (MIMO) systems which entirely avoids interchannel interference, requires no synchronisation between the transmit antennas and achieves a spatial multiplexing gain [2]. This is performed by mapping a block of information bits into a constellation point in the signal and spatial domains [3]. In SM, the number of information bits, ℓ, that are encoded in the spatial domain can be related to the number of transmit antennas N_{t} as N_{t }= 2^{ℓ}. This means that the number of transmit antennas must be a power of two unless fractional bit encoding [4] or generalised SM [5] are used. SM offers an intrinsic flexibility to trade off the number of transmit antennas with the modulation order in the signal domain to meet the desired data rate. It should be noted that SM is shown to outperform other pointtopoint MIMO schemes in terms of average biterrorratio (ABER) [3].
In the single user scenario, only a single transmit antenna is active at any instance, this avoids the need for complicated interference cancellation algorithms at the SM receiver. In addition, unlike other MIMO schemes, the number of receive antennas is independent of the number of transmit antennas. Several articles are available in literature which are aimed at understanding and improving the performance of SM in various scenarios, e.g., [68]. The study in [6] seeks to improve the ABER performance of SM by introducing trellis coding on the transmitting antennas. The study in [9] shows that the detector complexity of SM is independent of the number of transmit antennas. The optimal detector is known with and without channel state information at the receiver in [1012]. The optimal power allocation problem for a twotransmit with one receive antenna system is solved in closed form in [13] and the performance of SM in correlated fading channels is considered in [14,15]. Recent work has also shown that SM can be combined with space–time block codes to attain spectral efficiency gains [16] by exploiting transmitside diversity. At this point, it is worth noting that if we choose to use only the spatial constellation of SM to transmit information, then SM is reduced to spaceshiftkeying (SSK) as proposed in [17]. To this extent, we note that all presented work can be extended to SSK without loss of generality.
MIMO techniques can also be used in relaying networks to improve the diversity, provide multiplexing gains and aid in interference cancellation. To this extent, the orthogonal decode and forward (DF) algorithm decodes the received signal at the relay, then reencodes and retransmits this information, establishing a regenerative system. Outage probabilities, mutual information calculations and transmit diversity bounds for orthogonal amplify and forward (AF) and DF relaying are derived in [18] with the endtoend performance being considered in [19] where DF is shown to perform better in terms of the ABER when compared to AF. However, the ABER of regenerative systems depends on the ABER on the individual links. In particular, since SM is shown to outperform other spatial multiplexing techniques on a single link, the application of SM to relaying systems is also shown to provide significant signaltonoise ratio (SNR) gains when compared to orthogonal DF [20]. Nonetheless, these results are only applicable in a noiselimited relaying system. The deployment of relaying systems around the cell edges, however, may result in interferencelimited systems. Therefore, to enable the deployment of SM in a relaying scenario, the ABER performance of SM on a single link must also be assessed in the interferencelimited environment.
Most contributions thus far, however, have only addressed SM aspects for pointtopoint communication systems, i.e. the single user scenario. Notable exceptions are given in [21,22], where the authors focus their analysis on scenarios employing SSK. The aim of this study is to characterise the behaviour of SM in the multiuser, interferencelimited scenario and compare it to the complexity and cost equivalent multiuser MIMO system. We emphasise that SM requires only a single radio frequency (RF) chain at the transmit side since only one is active at any particular instance. Requiring only a single RF chain at the transmitter means that multiuser SM is not comparable in terms of cost to the more complicated spatialmultiplexing multiuser systems analysed in [2326].
Furthermore, the study in [27] shows that the most energy consuming part of a wireless base station is the power amplifiers and consequently RF chains associated with each transmitter. The study in [28] demonstrates that the power requirements of a base station increase linearly with the number of RF chains added. In addition to higher power consumption, multiple RF chains imply higher manufacturing costs and interantenna synchronisation problems. To this extent, SM is an optimal system for utilising the advantages of multiple transmit antennas while still maintaining a single RF chain for Green communications. The aggregate power usage in a system employing SM is significantly lower than a system employing classical MIMO techniques. Furthermore, the lower detection complexity for SM reduces mobile station power usage, enabling a longer battery life for the mobile terminal [9]. Understanding the performance of SM in a multiuser system is necessary to assess its suitability for practical deployment scenarios. In this context, it is of interest if the particular structure of the SM encoding scheme can be exploited to devise novel multiuser detection techniques.
In this study, we first characterise the performance of a single user detector as applied in an interferencelimited scenario, i.e. we analyse a ML interferenceunaware optimal receiver. We then propose an ML detector which can successfully decode incoming data in the multiuser scenario and is not interference limited, i.e. an interferenceaware detector which can successfully decode data from several nodes. For each detector, we develop an analytical framework to support simulation results and closed form solutions are provided to compute the ABER over identical and independently distributed (i.i.d.) Rayleigh fading channels.
The remainder of this article is organised as follows. In the “System model” section, the system and channel models are introduced. In the “Analytical modelling and receiver design” section, the performance of SM in the multiple access scenario is characterised and the analytical modelling for the multiuser detector is proposed. The “Simulation results and discussion” section provides simulation results to substantiate the accuracy of the developed analytical framework. In the “Summary and conclusions” section, we summarise and conclude this study.
System model
The basic idea of SM is to map blocks of information bits onto two information carrying units [3]: (i) a symbol, chosen from a complex signalconstellation diagram, and (ii) a unique transmitantenna, chosen from the set of transmitantennas in an antennaarray, i.e. the spatialconstellation. Jointly, the spatial and signal constellation symbols form a single SM constellation symbol. If, for example, we wish to transmit a total of 4 bits/s/Hz using SM with four available transmit antennas; then the first 2 bits would define the spatialconstellation point identifying the active antenna, while the remaining 2 bits would determine the signalconstellation point that will be transmitted.
In the following work, we assume multiple nodes/users, as shown in Figure 1. A total of N_{u} transmit nodes, denoted as {1,…,ξ,…N_{u}}, broadcast simultaneously on the same timefrequency slot to a single receiver. Each node broadcasts a signal constellation symbol, x^{(u)}, from one of its available antennas.
Figure 1. Multiuser SM system setup. Nodes 1,…,ξ,…N_{u }broadcast simultaneously to the receiver on the same timefrequency resource block. Each solid line represents the active transmit antenna on each node to every receiving antenna. Each dashed line represents the inactive channel from every transmit antenna at a particular node to every receiving antenna.
The received signal at antenna r is given by
where E_{m} is the average transmit energy per symbol,
Throughout the study E_{X}[x^{2}] = 1, meaning the average power in the signal constellation
Analytical modelling and receiver design
We analyse the ML detector for use in the multiple access scenario. The detector computes the Euclidean distance between the received vector signal, y, and the set of all possible received signals, selecting the closest one.
Interferenceunaware detection
Starting from the system model presented in the “System model” section, the decoded
pair
where
We can use union bound techniques to describe the behaviour of the interferenceunaware SM detector in the high SNR regions. From here, we proceed to characterise the behaviour of the interferenceunaware detector by defining
such that
define the symbols at the receive antenna r. With this, we can pose y = A + B + η.
The pairwise error probability (PEP) can now be derived as
where (·)^{∗ }represents the complex conjugate,
where
where we can see that
such that
where
After some analytical manipulations we obtain (10)
where
represents half of the signaltointerferenceplusnoise ratio (SINR) between node ξ and the receiver. Throughout the study, we average only across the fast fading channel statistics. As (11) shows, γ_{I }is still dependent on the magnitude of the modulated signal symbols of the interfering nodes, x^{(u)}. This means that all expressions using γ_{I }maintain their conditioning on the modulated signal symbols of the interfering nodes.
Given this formulation, we can now define the ABER of the singleuser detector using the union bounding techniques in the presence of interference as
where the uth summation from the (N_{u}−1) summations above is defined for all
As with the interfering nodes, we assume that the desired node’s fast fading follows
a Rayleigh distribution. To obtain the average PEP, we define
where
which has a central Chisquared distribution with 2N_{r }degrees of freedom given as
where (·)! represents the factorial function. We can now pose
By direct inspection, we can now apply the solution to ( [30], eq. 62) and obtain
where
and
We note that (12) presents an analytical bound for a system employing quadratureamplitudemodulation
(QAM). If we choose to use constantamplitude modulation such as phaseshiftkeying
(PSK), then for a fixed channel realisation, we define
where arg (·) represents the phase of a complex symbol. We realise that the amplitude of all constellation points is unity and thus
From the definition of
In this case, (12) reduces to
where
such that
The average power carried by any signalsymbol constellation in (12) is 1. Nonetheless, a variable amplitude modulation scheme means that the instantaneous SINR changes. The instantaneous SINR must strictly be defined to study the asymptotic behaviour of the system. This is necessary because the instantaneous SINR is an argument of the PEP which is defined using the Qfunction. To obtain the ABER, the PEP must be averaged across all channel realisations and all signalsymbol constellations. A closedform expression for the asymptotic behaviour of (12) and (13) is therefore difficult to obtain. However, we note that (22) and (23) are special cases of (12) and (13) which enable a simpler theoretical analysis of the asymptotic behaviour of the system as the SINR grows to infinity. Simulation results in the “Simulation results and discussion” section show that the asymptotic bounds derived for SM using a constant amplitude modulation scheme are also valid for SM using 4QAM. In addition, it is shown that for the pointtopoint single user scenario, SM using PSK may have a better ABER performance than SM using QAM depending on the number of available transmit antennas [31]. We now proceed with the asymptotic analysis of this system.
Asymptotic analysis of an interferenceunaware detector
In this section, we investigate some asymptotic cases to highlight trends in SM at
high SNR. Simulations in the “Simulation results and discussion” section show that
the presented results are asymptotically tight in the high SNR region. We first define
SNR_{ξ }≫1 and SINR≈SNR (noiselimited scenario)
This is the classic single user scenario where multiple access interference can be
neglected, and highSNR analysis for the probe link can be considered. We look at
(12), where in the limit
To simplify (26), the limit in (17) and (24) can be tackled by considering a Taylor expansion with two terms of (18) and obtain
We realise that the average symbolerrorratio (ASER) for SM is defined similar to the ABER and can be posed as
From here, we know that
where
is the expectation of
When M^{(ξ) }= 4, then
When M^{(ξ) }= 16, then
where
With this in mind, the closed form of the limit is defined as
At this point, the work can be simplified by considering a constantamplitude modulation
scheme such as PSK where
In general, it can be shown that as N_{r }→∞, the inverse of (35) tends to zero and is always less than 1. Since the inverse of (35) is always less than 1, the addition of an extra receive antenna implies a smaller ratio, which means a lower ABER and hence coding gains for the system.
SIMO system utilising QAM (noiselimited scenario)
To quantify the SNR difference between SM and SIMO using QAM, we need to look at the ABER performance of a SIMO system using QAM in the asymptote. We use ( [32], eq. 9.23) which provides a closed form solution for the ASER of a SIMO system using QAM with i.i.d. inputs, i.e. no correlation between the receive antennas. To begin the asymptotic analysis, ( [32], eq. 9.23) is tightly upper bounded by
where
Using (27) and evaluating (36) in the limit as γ tends to infinity, it reduces to
If we look at the ratio of (34) with (31) to (37) then, after some analytical manipulations shown in the “Reaching (38) from (34) with (31) and (37)” section in the Appendix, we can pose
for M^{(ξ) }= 4. If we equate the righthand side of (38) to 1, then the expression cannot be
solved in closed form. However, since N_{r} and
Table 1. Relative coding gains of SM using 4QAM compared to SIMO using
Proceeding in a similar manner as for (38), we pose the general ratio of the relative coding gains achieved by SM, using a variableamplitude modulation, over a SIMO system using QAM as
where Ψ must be defined for the desired SM signal constellation size, M^{(ξ)}. The exact ratios as given in Table 1 will vary depending on M^{(ξ)}, but the trend (SM outperforming SIMO) will remain, as can be seen in Table 2 for M^{(ξ) }= 16, i.e. the values in the last two rows of the tables are smaller than one.
Table 2. Relative coding gains of SM using 16QAM compared to SIMO using
Similarly, using a constantamplitude modulation scheme such as PSK, we realise that the only difference is that Ψ will be unity in (39). Implementing this change means removing the dependence on the signal constellation size for SM and resulting in a single table of values for (39), as given in Table 3.
Table 3. Relative coding gains of SM using PSK compared to SIMO using
From Tables 1, 2, and 3, we can conclude that a singleinputsingleoutput system using QAM performs better than SM using QAM or PSK, i.e. the values in the first row of each table are greater than 1. These results are applicable only to SM which means that at least 1 bit must be sent via the signalsymbol.
SIR_{ξ }≫ 1 and SINR ≈ SIR_{ξ }(interferencelimited scenario)
In this case, we neglect the AWGN in the channel and realise that the SIR_{ξ} is the dominant term dictating the ABER performance of the system. Looking at the expression for the SIR, we realise that γ_{I} is a function of the signalsymbol amplitude for all users and their respective channel attenuations. Thus, we cannot simply extract γ_{I} from (34). In particular, in the expression for γ_{I }in (11), x_{(u)} may be greater than 1, which would increase the interference from the remaining users. Due to the complexity of the expressions, further asymptotic study of the interferencelimited scenario for SM will be constrained to using a constantamplitude modulation scheme such as PSK. SM using PSK is shown to perform better than SM using QAM in certain cases [31]. For SM using PSK,
in the interferencelimited scenario. We see that the limit of the ABER tends to (34)
with a slight, but very important distinction: the system reaches an error floor.
This is to be expected when the receiver is interferenceunaware. If γ_{I} or
Interferenceaware detection
Starting from the system model presented in the “System model” section, the decoded
pair
Similar to the work in the “Interferenceunaware detection” section, the union bound technique is used to describe the behaviour of the interferenceaware SM detector in the high SNR regions. The main difference between the two detectors comes from the computation of the PEP between the possible received symbols. The union bound for the interferenceaware SM detector, which estimates the ABER for node ξ, can be expressed as
The pairs,
Similar to the analytical derivation of (4) in the “Interferenceunaware detection” section, the ABER for node ξ is shown in (42), where the PEP is given as
A more detailed derivation of (43) is given in the “Derivation of (43)” section in the Appendix. We note that thus far no assumptions have been made as to the channel distribution. Considering Rayleigh fading channels for all links in the system, we can derive the closed form solution for E_{H}[PEP(·)] in (42) in the same manner as shown in the “Interferenceunaware detection” section with (16) and (17) such that
and
Note that (42) presents an analytical treatment of the most general case of SM using variable amplitude modulation for the signal symbol. Given this, the system using the interferenceaware detector behaves in a similar fashion to the noiselimited system, in that for an arbitrarily high SNR, each user can achieve an arbitrarily low ABER. It should be pointed out that due to the simultaneous detection process, the users with the best SNR will not be able to achieve their singleuserlowerbound (SULB). The exact effect of the additional nodes/users is further discussed in the “Simulation results and discussion” section.
Simulation results and discussion
In this section, we aim to show the performance of the interferenceunaware and interferenceaware detectors proposed in (2) and (41). In particular, we aim to show that (41) can successfully decode the incoming streams for all nodes. Numerical results demonstrate that (12) and (42) provide tight upper bounds for the ABER of the detectors at high SNR in the interferencelimited scenario. Furthermore, we demonstrate that the interferenceaware detector for SM performs better than the ML detector for a multiuser SIMO system using QAM.
The proposed interferenceaware detector is jointly optimal for all nodes and does
not suffer from the near–far problem, but it needs full channel state information
(CSI) from all possible transmitting antennas to each receiving antenna. In addition,
finding the optimal solution is an exponentially complex problem. Assuming each node
has the same number of transmit antennas, N_{t}, and uses the same signal constellation with M points, then the interferenceaware ML detector proposed has
To justify our
Simulation setup
A frequencyflat Rayleigh fading channel with no correlation between the transmitting
antennas and AWGN is assumed. Perfect CSI is assumed at the receiving node, with no
CSI at the transmitter. Only one of the available transmit antennas for each node
is active at any transmitting instance. In theory, each node independently decides
the number of transmit antennas, and, by extension, the signalsymbol modulation it
uses. In the simulation each node has the same number of transmit antennas as well
as the same spectral efficiency target. In each of the figures, there are three sets
of results presented: (i) the simulation results for the multiuser detector for each
node, denoted by Sim (N_{(ξ)}), (ii) the theoretical results from (12) or (42) for the node of interest and (iii)
the SULB, denoted by SULB (N_{(ξ)}). We define the asymptotically tight SULB as the system performance in a noiselimited
scenario given in (26) which is governed purely by its SNR, defined as E_{m}/N_{o}. It should be noted that in Figures
2,
3 and
4 in addition to (26), ASER/2, i.e. (28) divided by 2, is presented and overlaps (26);
both are denoted as SULB (N_{(ξ)}) in Figures
2,
3 and
4. This serves to justify the use of (28) in our asymptotic analysis in the “Asymptotic
analysis of an interferenceunaware detector” section. In addition, (26) is based
on the union bound technique and, in some results, SULB(N_{(ξ)}) is above 1, which is impossible for a real system. In this regard, the SULB is a
lower bound on the analytical performance of each system only at low ABER. To help
illustrate the difference in the behaviour of the two detectors, the channel attenuations,
Figure 2.
Figure 3.
Figure 4.
Results for interferenceunaware detection
Asymptotic results in the “Asymptotic analysis of an interferenceunaware detector”
section, in particular (34) using QPSK for the signalsymbol modulation are verified
in Figure
2. In this case, Ψis strictly defined by (22). The horizontal lines in Figure
2 represent (34) for varying values of
Figure 5.
Figure
4 shows that the increase in diversity resulting from the addition of only a single
receive antenna significantly influences the system performance. The addition of the
receive antenna increases the Euclidean distance between the received and hypothesis
vectors, which results in a lower ABER. Comparing Figure
2 with Figure
3 and similarly Figure
3 with Figure
4 where the number of receive antennas is increased in each figure, showing how the
addition of a single receive antenna is equivalent to lowering the interference
From the presented results it is clear that when the interferenceunaware detector is used, the system ABER plateaus at the derived limits, irrespective of the transmit power being used. As discussed in the “Interferenceunaware detection” section, and as work in [20] has shown, the ABER improves when the number of transmit or receive antennas is increased, i.e. the system achieves coding gains.
Results for interferenceaware detection
In Figure 6 we see the performance of the jointly optimal interferenceaware ML detector for a two user scenario. Figure 6 clearly demonstrates that the analytical model presented in (42) represents an asymptotically tight upper bound for the system in the high SNR region. The node with the worse channel attenuation performs close to its SULB. This is not the case for the node with the better channel.
Figure 6.
To understand this, we can think of the multiuser ML detector as employing interference cancellation for the node with the worse channel attenuation. If the interfering user is sufficiently powerful, then the primary source of errors for the weakest node is the background AWGN rather than the randomness caused by the interfering signal [29]. All users that have good channel conditions can be considered as strong interferers, so when they are removed, the weakest nodes obtain performance closer to their SULB, i.e. the interferenceaware detector is akin to strong interference cancellation for the weakest node. On the contrary, for the nodes with better channel conditions, the primary source of errors is the randomness caused by the interfering signal rather than the background AWGN, which is why the nodes with better channel conditions never perform near their SULB.
The addition of more transmit antennas at each of the nodes results in coding gains
for each node as can be seen when Figures
6 and
7 are compared. The reduction in ABER as the number of transmit antennas increases
is explained by realising that as the number of transmit antennas increases, the average
variance
Figure 7.
Figure 8 shows the performance of the system when the number of receive antennas is increased. On the one hand, moving from Figures 7 to 8, for a fixed spectral efficiency and a fixed number of transmit antennas, the addition of more receive antennas results in an increasing gap between the analytical ABER curves of the two nodes. In particular, a gap of 4 dB between the performance of nodes 1 and 2 with N_{r }= 2 is increased to around 7 dB when N_{r }= 4 and further increased to 9 dB for N_{r }= 8. On the other hand, given that the two nodes experience a channel gain difference of 10 dB, we know that the interferenceaware detector cannot reach the performance of independent detection and the SULB for the node with the better channel attenuation. Nonetheless, the gap between their respective ABER curves tends toward the difference between their respective channel attenuation as N_{r }grows.
Figure 8.
These trends can also be observed if we look at the progression of the ABER curves in Figures 9 and 10. Figures 9 and 10 show the system performance of three users and varying N_{r}. Similar to the two user scenario, as N_{r }increases, for the three user case, each user performs better and slowly closes the gap to its SULB. As expected, the addition of more nodes increases the interference and pushes the performance of each node further from its SULB, noticeable when comparing Figures 7 and 10 for node 2.
Figure 9.
Figure 10.
Lastly, Figure 11 demonstrates that in the multiple access interferencelimited scenario, by using the interferenceaware detector, SM performs better than the complexity and cost equivalent ML detector for the multiuser SIMO system. Specifically, SM exhibits an approximately 3 dB better performance in terms of SNR at an ABER of 10^{−4} for each user. The relatively constant coding gain is the result of the similar detection used for both systems. While multiuser SM and multiuser SIMO may be comparable in terms of detector complexity and the number of transmit and receive RF chains required, each SM node requires multiple transmit antenna elements. The multiple transmit antennas mean that the SM constellation points are spread in a larger Euclidean space and thus have lower error probability.
Figure 11.
Summary and conclusions
In this study, the performance of SM in the multiple access, interferencelimited scenario was investigated. Two ML detectors for use with SM were discussed.
The interferenceunaware detector was defined and studied in the limit as the SNR
approached infinity. Its performance over uncorrelated Rayleigh fading channels was
studied and a closed form solution for the upper bound of the system was provided.
It was shown that this detector inevitably reaches an error floor which is dependent
on the system SINR. The exact level was defined as a function and concrete examples
were provided. It was shown that the increase in the number of receive antennas has
a greater impact on the asymptotic performance of the system compared to reducing
the interference in the system. The addition of a single receive antenna resulted
in greater SNR gains than reducing the interference,
The interferenceaware ML detector for SM was proposed. As with the interferenceunaware detector, its performance over uncorrelated Rayleigh fading channels was studied and a closed form solution for the upper bound of the system was provided. In addition to avoiding the error floor present in the interferenceunaware detector, the jointly optimal detector results in a noiselimited scenario for the detection of all transmitted streams, i.e. an arbitrarily small ABER can be obtained by any user for a sufficiently high SNR. On the one hand, for the same spectral efficiency, increasing the number of transmit antennas at each of the nodes from 2 to 4 resulted in SNR gains of around 2 dB. This measure did not, however, have any effect on the coding gain difference between the ABER curves. On the other hand, increasing the number of receive antennas increased the diversity of the system. This, increased the coding gain difference between the ABER curves of the nodes because the receiver could distinguish the channels more easily and better mitigate interference. The impact on the diversity and coding gains further shows the importance of the number of receive antennas in any SM system. A limiting factor, as with all ML detectors, is the complexity. In addition, the receiver must have channel knowledge from all transmitting nodes. These two limitations constrain the application of this detector to the uplink scenario. The interferenceaware detector enabled SM to perform better in terms of ABER than the complexity and cost equivalent multiuser SIMO system in an interferencelimited environment.
This study demonstrated that in order to effectively apply SM in an interferencelimited scenario, the number of receive antennas should be maximised. Although more computationally complex than the interferenceunaware detector, the interferenceaware detector can guarantee that the system does not reach an error floor.
Appendix
Derivation of (32)
We begin by considering
where ε ∈ {(1,1),(2,1),(3,1)} and d_{ε }are the distances defined in Figure
12 and
•
Figure 12. The red squares denote 16QAM constellation points. In this image, the constellation is not normalised. The figure shows possible distance combinations between each of the constellation points and their distances to the origin.
•
•
•
We know that these combinations occur for every instance when
Having established the derivation of
• d_{(1,2) }occurs a total of
• d_{(2,2) }occurs a total of
• d_{(3,2) }occurs a total of
• d_{(4,2) }occurs a total of
By looking at Figure 12, we can easily see that for M^{(ξ) }= 16:
•
•
•
•
We realise that the combinations counted above are applicable for every transmit antenna.
This implies that we must multiply each count by
To arrive at a final solution, we set all other combination values to g_{QAM} as we enforce our bound on
which is the number of elements for which
which when simplified becomes (32).
In Figure 13 we compare the asymptote of SM, given by (34), in the noiselimited scenario for M^{(ξ) }= 16 with and without using (32). Figure 13 exemplifies the accuracy and tightness of our approach.
Figure 13. The dashed lines with circle markers denote the asymptote for the system if the expectation
for
Reaching (38) from (34) with (31) and (37)
Combining (34) with (31) results in
Restating (37) for convenience, we have
Taking the ratio of (49) over (37) gives (38) as
Derivation of (43)
where
The result for E_{H }[PEP(·)] is given as
such that
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Acknowledgements
We gratefully acknowledge the support from the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EP/G011788/1) in the United Kingdom for this study.
References

J Mietzner, R Schober, L Lampe, WH Gerstacker, PA Hoeher, Multipleantenna techniques for wireless communications—a comprehensive literature survey. IEEE Commun. Surv. Tutor 11(2), 87–105 (2009)

R Mesleh, H Haas, Y Lee, S Yun, Interchannel interference avoidance in MIMO transmission by exploiting spatial information. in Proc, ed. by . of the 16th IEEE International Symposium on Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications (PIMRC), vol. 1 ((Berlin Germany, 11–14 September 2005), pp. 141–145)

R Mesleh, H Haas, S Sinanović, CW Ahn, S Yun, Spatial modulation. IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol 57(4), 2228–2241 (2008)

N Serafimovski, S Sinanović, RY Mesleh, H Haas, M Di Renzo, Fractional bit encoded spatial modulation (FBE–SM). IEEE Commun. Lett 14(5), 429–431 (2010)

A Younis, N Serafimovski, R Mesleh, H Haas, Generalized spatial modulation. Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems, and Computers ((Pacific Grove, CA, USA, November 2010))

R Mesleh, M Di Renzo, H Haas, PM Grant, Trellis coded spatial modulation. IEEE Trans. Wirel. Commun 9(7), 2349–2361 (2010)

A Younis, R Mesleh, H Haas, PM Grant, Reduced complexity sphere decoder for spatial modulation detection receivers. 2010 IEEE Global Telecommunications Conference (GLOBECOM 2010) ((Miami, Florida, USA, December 2010), pp. 1–5)

MD Renzo, H Haas, Performance analysis of spatial modulation. International ICST Conference on Communications and Networking in China (CHINACOM) ((Beijing, China, August 2010, pp. 1–7))

A Younis, R Mesleh, H Haas, M Renzo, Sphere decoding for spatial modulation. in Proc, ed. by . of IEEE International Conference on Communications (IEEE ICC 2011) ((Kyoto, Japan, 5–9 June 2011), pp. 1–6)

J Jeganathan, A Ghrayeb, L Szczecinski, Spatial modulation: optimal detection and performance analysis. IEEE Commun. Lett 12(8), 545–547 (2008)

SU Hwang, S Jeon, S Lee, J Seo, Softoutput ML detector for spatial modulation OFDM systems. IEICE Electron Exp 6(19), 1426–1431 (2009). Publisher Full Text

M Di Renzo, H Haas, Spatial modulation with partialCSI at the receiver: optimal detector and performance evaluation. Proceedings of the 33rd IEEE conference on Sarnoff ((IEEE Press, Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2010), pp. 58–63) (http://portal), . acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1843486.1843498 webcite

M Di Renzo, H Haas, Improving the performance of Ssace shift keying (SSK) modulation via opportunistic power allocation. IEEE Commun. Lett 14(6), 500–502 (2010)

T Handte, A Muller, J Speidel, BER analysis and optimization of generalized spatial modulation in correlated fading channels. Vehicular Technology Conference Fall (VTC Fall2009) (Anchorage Alaska, USA, IEEE, (September 2009), pp. 1–5)

MD Renzo, H Haas, Bit error probability of SMMIMO over generalized fading channels. IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol 61(3), 1124–1144 (2012)

E Basar, U Aygolu, E Panayirci, VH Poor, Spacetime block coded spatial modulation. IEEE Trans. Commun 59(3), 823–832 (2011)

J Jeganathan, A Ghrayeb, L Szczecinski, A Ceron, Space shift keying modulation for MIMO channels. IEEE Trans. Wirel. Commun 8(7), 3692–3703 (2009)

JN Laneman, DNC Tse, GW Wornell, Cooperative diversity in wireless networks: efficient protocols and outage behavior. IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 50(12), 3062–3080 (2004). Publisher Full Text

MO Hasna, MS Alouini, Endtoend performance of transmission systems with relays over Rayleighfading channels. IEEE Trans. Wirel. Commun 2(6), 1126–1131 (2003). Publisher Full Text

N Serafimovski, S Sinanovic, M Di Renzo, H Haas, Dualhop spatial modulation (DhSM). in Proc, ed. by . of the Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC Spring) (Budapest, Hungary, IEEE, 15–18, May 2011), pp. 1–5)

M Di Renzo, H Haas, On the performance of SSK modulation over multipleaccess Rayleigh fading channels. IEEE Global Telecommunications Conference (GLOBECOM) ((Miami, Florida, USA, December 2010), pp. 1–6)

M Di Renzo, H Haas, Bit error probability of spaceshift keying MIMO over multipleaccess independent fading channels. IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol 60(8), 3694–3711 (2011)

J Duplicy, B Badic, R Balraj, R Ghaffar, P Horvth, FKR Knopp, IZ Kovacs, HT Nguyen, D Tandur, G Vivier, MUMIMO in LTE systems. EURASIP J. Wirel. Commun. Netw 2011, 13 (2011). BioMed Central Full Text

JG Andrews, W Choi, RW Heath Jr, Overcoming interference in spatial multiplexing MIMO cellular networks. IEEE Wirel. Commun. Mag 14(6), 95–104 (2007)

D Gesbert, M Kountouris, RW Heath, C byoung Chae, T Salzer, From single user to multiuser communications: shifting the MIMO paradigm. IEEE Signal Process. Mag 24, 36–46 (2007)

CW Tan, AR Calderbank, Multiuser detection of alamouti signals. IEEE Trans. Commun 57, 2080–2089 (2009) (http://dl, 2009), . acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1651065.1651094

G Auer, V Gianni, I Godor, P Skillermark, M Olsson, M Imran, M Gonzalez, C Desset, O Blume, A Fehske, How much energy is needed to run a wireless network? IEEE Wirel. Commun 11, 40–49 (2011)

C Desset, B Debaillie, V Giannini, A Fehske, G Auer, H Holtkamp, W Wajda, D Sabella, F Richter, MJ Gonzalez, H Klessig, I Godor, M Olsson, MA Imran, A Ambrosy, O Blume, Flexible power modeling of LTE base stations. IEEE Wireless Communications and Networking Conference (WCNC) ((Paris, France, April 2012), pp.2858–2862)

S Verdu, Multiuser Detection (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,MA, 1998)

MS Alouini, A Goldsmith, A unified approach for calculating error rates of linearly modulated signals over generalized fading channels. IEEE Trans. Commun 47(9), 1324–1334 (1999). Publisher Full Text

M Di Renzo, H Haas, Bit error probability of spatial modulation (SM) MIMO over generalized fading channels. IEEE Trans Veh. Technol 61, 1124–1144 (2012)

MK Simon, M Alouini, Digital Communication over Fading Channels (John Wiley & Sons, Inc, NEw York, 2005) ISBN: 9780471649533

S Verdu, Computational complexity of optimum multiuser detection. Algorithmica 4, 303–312 (http://dx, 1989), . doi.org/10.1007/BF01553893 Publisher Full Text