2005
DOI: 10.1007/bf03054042
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Detection techniques for MIMO spatial multiplexing systems

Abstract: We discuss and compare the most important detection techniques for MIMO spatial multiplexing wireless systems, focusing on their performance and computational complexity. Our analysis shows that the limited performance of conventional suboptimal detection techniques is primarily caused by their inability to cope with poorly conditioned channels. The recently proposed sphere projection algorithm is better suited to these channels and can achieve near-optimal performance.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
18
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 18 publications
(18 citation statements)
references
References 20 publications
0
18
0
Order By: Relevance
“…First, the ZF and MMSE detectors are the basic building blocks of advanced MIMO communication architectures (e.g., layered space-time architectures (Foschini, 1996;Seethaler, Artés & Hlawatsch, 2004) and joint transmit-receive equalizers (Palomar & Lagunas, 2003;Jiang, Li & Hager, 2005) ), and have been extensively addressed in the MIMO literature (Jankiraman, 2004;Biglieri et al, 2007;Heath Jr & Lozano, 2018). Second, they have low computational complexity compared to the (optimum) maximum likelihood (ML) detector, and their performance can be very close to the ML performance for a well-conditioned MIMO channel, i.e., its condition number is near to unity (see Seethaler, Artés & Hlawatsch (2005) for more details).…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…First, the ZF and MMSE detectors are the basic building blocks of advanced MIMO communication architectures (e.g., layered space-time architectures (Foschini, 1996;Seethaler, Artés & Hlawatsch, 2004) and joint transmit-receive equalizers (Palomar & Lagunas, 2003;Jiang, Li & Hager, 2005) ), and have been extensively addressed in the MIMO literature (Jankiraman, 2004;Biglieri et al, 2007;Heath Jr & Lozano, 2018). Second, they have low computational complexity compared to the (optimum) maximum likelihood (ML) detector, and their performance can be very close to the ML performance for a well-conditioned MIMO channel, i.e., its condition number is near to unity (see Seethaler, Artés & Hlawatsch (2005) for more details).…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Knowing the exact ML solution is desired since it serves as a benchmark to assess how various detectors perform relative to the optimum solution [12]. When n T is large (tens to hundreds), computing the exact ML solution becomes infeasible due to the exponential complexity.…”
Section: Optimum Detectorsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…if H n,m channel coefficient is independent Maximum diversity is available, because each information data b m is transmitted over N R independent scalar fading channels H n,m , n = 1,…, N R [6] . If larger is N R, smaller is the possibility that all of channels fade at a time and thus the data detection reliability can be increased.…”
Section: System Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In equalization detection, an estimation of transmitted information b is made as d = Gv with an "equalization matrix" G. The detected information vector is obtained as = { }, where Q {•} indicate the component wise according to the symbol [6]. For the zero-forcing equalizer, the equalization matrix G is given by pseudoinverse of H, it is given by G = # = ( H) -1 H H .…”
Section: Equalization Based Detectionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation