Implementation Aspects of List Sphere Detector Algorithms

A list sphere detector (LSD) can be used to approximate the optimal maximum a posteriori (MAP) detection. The total complexity of the LSD algorithms is relative to the number of visited nodes in the search tree. We compare the differences between real and complex signal model in the LSD algorithm implementation and study its impact on the complexity and performance with different search strategies. In hardware implementation, the number of visited nodes needs to be bounded in order to determine the complexity and the latency of the implementation. Thus, we study the performance of LSD algorithms with a limited number of nodes in the search. We show that the algorithms with real signal model are less complex compared to the complex signal model, and that the performance may suffer significantly with limited search depending on the search strategy.

[1]  Edsger W. Dijkstra,et al.  A note on two problems in connexion with graphs , 1959, Numerische Mathematik.

[2]  Leonard J. Cimini,et al.  Analysis and Simulation of a Digital Mobile Channel Using Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing , 1985, IEEE Trans. Commun..

[3]  U. Fincke,et al.  Improved methods for calculating vectors of short length in a lattice , 1985 .

[4]  Claus-Peter Schnorr,et al.  Lattice Basis Reduction: Improved Practical Algorithms and Solving Subset Sum Problems , 1991, FCT.

[5]  Gerard J. Foschini,et al.  Layered space-time architecture for wireless communication in a fading environment when using multi-element antennas , 1996, Bell Labs Technical Journal.

[6]  Reinaldo A. Valenzuela,et al.  V-BLAST: an architecture for realizing very high data rates over the rich-scattering wireless channel , 1998, 1998 URSI International Symposium on Signals, Systems, and Electronics. Conference Proceedings (Cat. No.98EX167).

[7]  Wai Ho Mow,et al.  A VLSI architecture of a K-best lattice decoding algorithm for MIMO channels , 2002, 2002 IEEE International Symposium on Circuits and Systems. Proceedings (Cat. No.02CH37353).

[8]  Andrea J. Goldsmith,et al.  Capacity limits of MIMO channels , 2003, IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun..

[9]  Stephan ten Brink,et al.  Achieving near-capacity on a multiple-antenna channel , 2003, IEEE Trans. Commun..

[10]  Giuseppe Caire,et al.  On maximum-likelihood detection and the search for the closest lattice point , 2003, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory.

[11]  Dirk Wübben,et al.  Near-maximum-likelihood detection of MIMO systems using MMSE-based lattice reduction , 2004, 2004 IEEE International Conference on Communications (IEEE Cat. No.04CH37577).

[12]  Jing Wang,et al.  A computationally efficient exact ML sphere decoder , 2004, IEEE Global Telecommunications Conference, 2004. GLOBECOM '04..

[13]  A. Burg,et al.  VLSI implementation of MIMO detection using the sphere decoding algorithm , 2005, IEEE Journal of Solid-State Circuits.

[14]  Hongwei Yang.  A road to future broadband wireless access: MIMO-OFDM-Based air interface , 2005, IEEE Communications Magazine.

[15]  Joseph R. Cavallaro,et al.  Comparison of Two Novel List Sphere Detector Algorithms for MIMO-OFDM Systems , 2006, 2006 IEEE 17th International Symposium on Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications.

[16]  W. Fichtner,et al.  A Unification of ML-Optimal Tree-Search Decoders , 2006, 2006 Fortieth Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems and Computers.

[17]  Joseph R. Cavallaro,et al.  A List Sphere Detector based on Dijkstra's Algorithm for MIMO-OFDM Systems , 2007, 2007 IEEE 18th International Symposium on Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications.