The subject of this invention is a method of receiving CDMA signals with parallel interference suppression, a corresponding stage and a corresponding receiver.
It finds application notable in radiocommunication with mobiles.
The technology of spectrum spreading by a direct sequence consists, schematically of multiplying an information symbol (for example a binary element) by a pseudo-random sequence (also called a code) made up of a sequence of elements called “chips”. This operation has the effect of spreading the spectrum of the signal. On reception, the received signal is processed by correlation (or matched filtering) with a pseudo-random sequence identical to that of the transmission, which has the effect of reducing (or correlating) the spectrum. The signal correlated in this way, is processed in order to recover the information symbol.
This technique allows several users to access a single radiocommunications system, with the condition that they use distinct codes. One is then speaking of “Code Division Multiple Access” or CDMA for short.
Despite offering numerous advantages, communications by spectrum spreading with code division multiple access are of limited capacity in terms of the number of users. This limitation is due to interference occurring between signals coming from different users. The more numerous the users are, the more important this interference phenomenon becomes.
Various solutions have been proposed to remedy this disadvantage and, notably, the suppression (or at the very least the reduction) of interference. Hence, in American patent U.S. Pat. No. 5,218,619, for example, sequential suppression of the interference is recommended proceeding by decreasing order of power of the signals from the various users. In American patent U.S. Pat. No. 5,363,403 contrary to this, parallel suppression of these interference signals is recommended. As this invention again takes up this latter technique, we can break off there and illustrate the general structure of a receiver of this type.
The receiver illustrated in the appended
The receiver firstly comprises an input stage with means 101, 102, 103 capable of receiving the composite signal and of supplying a signal correlated by the code C1, C2 or C3 appropriate to each channel; these means can consist of a correlator or a matched filter.
Next the receiver comprises a parallel interference suppression stage 100 which comprises :
After the parallel interference suppression stage, there are three matched filters 201, 202, 203 working respectively with the codes C1, C2, C3 and correlating the signals r1, r2, r3 then an output stage 200 with three decision circuits 211, 212, 213 supplying the three data S1, S2 and S3.
Although giving satisfaction in certain regards, such receivers do not eliminate the risks of error. The suppression of interference, if it is carried out without precautions, can even increase this risk. The purpose of this invention is precisely to reduce this risk (in other words to reduce the bit error rate), by improving the means of reconstructing the signals before the actual interference suppression itself. With the invention, a single parallel interference suppression stage offers better performance than the traditional two suppression stages.
In order to obtain this result in the interference suppression stage and to estimate the received data, the invention provides for the use of a particular criterion which is called “The Maximum Likelihood” criterion. This criterion is known of itself in CDMA techniques. One may find a description for example in the work by J. G. PROAKIS entitled “Digital Communications” McGRAW-HILL Inc., 3rd edition, 1995, Chapter 5-1-4. However, in the prior art, this criterion is used in an ordinary receiver, and not in a means of parallel suppression of multiple access interference. Furthermore, in the prior art, this criterion is used with the aid of an algorithm called Viterbi's Algorithm, which allows one to find, through a lattice representing all possible configurations, a sequence of data which minimizes a quantity called the “Euclidean distance metric”. This technique, which takes into account the whole of the data transmitted by all users, is often very complex. This invention adapts this technique notably by simplifying it. Furthermore it defines a metric which is particularly suitable for the parallel suppression of multiple access interference.
Put precisely, the subject of this invention is a method of receiving CDMA signals with parallel interference suppression in which:
Another subject of this invention is a parallel interference suppression stage that implements this method, this stage comprising:
Another subject of the invention is a receiver for CDMA signals that implements the method defined above and comprising:
Circuit V comprises K means ES1, . . . , ESk, . . . , ESK for estimation of the transmitted signal which estimate the amplitude and the lag of each peak supplied by the matched filter which precedes it. The circuit next comprises means M to calculate the metrics (the precise expression for which will be given later), in order to determine the smallest metric and to supply the corresponding signal configuration, which is then the most likely. The circuit further comprises K means R1, . . . , Rk, . . . , RK to reconstruct the signals, that is to say to supply signals correlated in frequency by the pseudo-random codes. These reconstructed signals are then applied to a parallel interference suppression circuit, the structure of which is not shown but which comprises, as shown in
Stage V is followed by matched filters F1, . . . , Fk, . . . , FK which permit input either to a new parallel interference suppression stage or to an output stage.
In order to illustrate the operation of the means M of calculating the metrics, the simple case of a stage with two channels (therefore with two users) will be considered. It is also assumed that there are several parallel interference suppression stages, each marked by an index i, these stages following an input stage to each of which the index o has been allocated.
In the stage with index i, the two means of estimating the amplitude of the transmitted signal, supply two signals marked Zi(1) for the first channel and Zi(2) for the second, while the two matched filters of the input stage supply signals Zo(1) and Zo(2).
The circuit M considers the absolute value of the amplitudes of these signals, or |Zi(1)| and |Zi(2)| and formulates two hypotheses on the sign that can be allocated to these values, namely + or −. There are therefore 22=4 hypotheses for the groups of two signals taken with their sign, these four hypotheses (designated (Hyp)j) being labeled with an index j that goes from 1 to 4. The four configurations corresponding to these four hypotheses are the following:
According to classical notation, each group of two signals can be considered as the two components of a vector designated ({right arrow over (Z)}i). Therefore there are four possible vectors according to the retained hypothesis, namely:
({right arrow over (Z)}i)1,({right arrow over (Z)}i)2({right arrow over (Z)}i)3,({right arrow over (Z)}i)4
The invention uses a Euclidean distance metric, afterwards referred to as the metric, of the form
(Σ({right arrow over (X)}−{right arrow over (Y)}))2
where {right arrow over (X)} and {right arrow over (Y)} represent two vectors. Such a metric measures, in a way, the distance between the two extreme points of the vectors. The smaller the metric is, the closer the vectors are.
The following four metrics, corresponding to the four formulated hypotheses, will therefore be calculated:
(M1=(|Zo(1)|−|Zi(1)|)2+|Zo(2)|−|Zi(2)|))2
(M2=(|Zo(1)|−|Zi(1)|)2+|Zo(2)|+|Zi(2)|))2
(M3=(|Zo(1)|+|Zi(1)|)2+|Zo(2)|−|Zi(2)|))2
(M4=(|Zo(1)|+|Zi(1)|)2+|Zo(2)|+|Zi(2)|))2
The smallest of these metrics corresponds to the configuration closest to the configuration at the output from the input stage and hence to the most likely configuration. If, for example, the smallest metric is the third one M3, the most likely configuration will be:
The means M will then supply the signals −|Zi(1)| and +|Zi(2) | and the two reconstitution circuits which follow it will spread these signals using the two appropriate pseudo-random sequences. The traditional means of parallel interference suppression will then receive the spread signals of maximum likelihood and will then be able to correct these signals in an optimum way.
In a general way, the means M for a stage of row i calculates the quantity
where the summation is extended at least to the values that constitute the block of data within a time interval equal to N symbol durations.
When N =1, there are only K components to be processed (the case referred to as a single symbol block) and the number of hypotheses to be formulated is 2K. With NK components, this number rises to 2NK. To prevent too much complexity, N is limited to a few units, for example, less than 5.
In order to illustrate the variations in value taken by the metric as a function of the hypotheses made on the signs, we may consider the case of three users, each using pseudo-random sequences each with 63 elements or chips, the modulation employed being differential type modulation with quaternary phase modulation (DQPSK) with two channels per user, namely one channel in phase (called I) and one channel in phase quadrature (called Q). There are therefore 6 channels in parallel, or 26=32 possible hypotheses on the signs of a single symbol block. These 32 hypotheses or configurations are labeled by their row in the diagram in
The method and the receiver that have just been described assume, for the totally general case, that 2NK hypotheses are formulated. The complexity of the method can naturally be reduced by reducing the block of data with K data (a single symbol block mentioned above). However this complexity can be further reduced, in the method of seeking the maximum likelihood, by only taking into account those signals for which the estimation is judged to have little reliability or to put it another way by excluding from the method those signals judged to be reliable. Assuming that Q signals are reliable, only K−Q signals will be retained for the calculation of the metrics, which corresponds to 2K−Q hypotheses.
Means of measuring reliability are described and claimed in French patent application No. 98 09782 filed by the present applicant on the Jul. 30th 1998.
However other criteria of reliability can be used, such as those which are described in patent U.S. Pat. No. 5,644,592.
Naturally, several of these simplified stages can be cascaded, as for FIG. 3.
In another particular embodiment, the signals supplied by the matched filters can be linearly combined before they are addressed to the output stage. One can see in
The weighting coefficients can be fixed or variable. Such a technique is described in U.S. Pat. No. 5,553,062.
One can also improve the reconstructions and estimations of the signals by using the reliability thresholds in order to reconstruct or not to reconstruct (or to only partially reconstruct) certain signals. Such a technique is described and claimed in the French patent application No. 98 03586 filed on the Mar. 24th 1998 by the present applicant. A technique of this kind is also described in the patent U.S. Pat. No. 5,644,592.
The performance of a receiver according to the invention has been simulated by the applicant. To do this, certain hypotheses have been formulated for the pulse response of the propagation channel. Firstly, one can consider an ideal pulse response which would be formed by a single peak, which would correspond to an absence of multiple paths. However, one can also choose a more realistic hypothesis, illustrated in
It can be seen that the invention leads to a significant improvement in performance. In particular, a single stage of parallel interference suppression (in the simplified version) offers better performance than the traditional two stages.
Number | Date | Country | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
98 11335 | Sep 1998 | FR | national |
Notice: More than one reissue application has been filed for the reissue of U.S. Pat. No. 6,621,856. The reissue applications are application Ser. No. 11/229,448 (the present application) and application Ser. No. 11/497,504(which was a continuation of the present application, and which has been abandoned).
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
5361276 | Subramanian | Nov 1994 | A |
5363403 | Schilling et al. | Nov 1994 | A |
5467368 | Takeuchi et al. | Nov 1995 | A |
6175587 | Madhow et al. | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6175588 | Visotsky et al. | Jan 2001 | B1 |
7200183 | Olson et al. | Apr 2007 | B2 |
7254197 | Heo et al. | Aug 2007 | B2 |
20040160924 | Narayan et al. | Aug 2004 | A1 |
20050031023 | Narayan et al. | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050031060 | Thomas et al. | Feb 2005 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
19623665 | Apr 1997 | DE |
19630391 | Jul 1997 | DE |
0654913 | May 1995 | EP |
0756387 | Jan 1997 | EP |
0852432 | Jul 1998 | EP |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 09393268 | Sep 1999 | US |
Child | 11229448 | US |