| Literature DB >> 36016064 |
Chunli Zhao1, Fengfan Yang1, Daniel Kariuki Waweru1, Chen Chen1, Hongjun Xu2.
Abstract
We present a well-known generalized Reed-Solomon (GRS) code incorporated with space-time block coded spatial modulation (STBC-SM) for wireless networks, which is capable of enjoying coded cooperation between the source and the relay. In the proposed distributed GRS-coded STBC-SM (DGRSC-STBC-SM) scheme, the source and relay nodes use distinct GRS codes. At the relay, we employ the concept of information selection to choose the message symbols from the source for further encoding. Thus, the codewords jointly constructed by the source and relay are generated at the destination. For achieving the best codeword set at the destination, we propose an optimal algorithm at the relay to select partial symbols from the source. To reduce the computational complexity, we propose a more practical algorithm with low complexity. Monte Carlo simulation results show that the proposed scheme using the low-complexity algorithm can achieve near-optimal error performance. Furthermore, our proposed scheme provides better error performance than its corresponding coded non-cooperative counterpart and the existing Reed-Solomon coded cooperative SM (RSCC-SM) scheme under identical conditions.Entities:
Keywords: coded cooperation; generalized Reed–Solomon (GRS); space-time block coded spatial modulation (STBC-SM)
Year: 2022 PMID: 36016064 PMCID: PMC9412487 DOI: 10.3390/s22166305
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.847
Figure 1Generalized distributed linear block coding scheme.
Figure 2System model of half-duplex DGRSC-STBC-SM scheme.
Mapping procedure for STBC-SM with codes over the field .
| Field Elements | Binary Vectors | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Active TACs | Modulated Symbols | ||
| 0 | [0, 0, 0, 0] | (1, 2) | ( |
| 1 | [1, 0, 0, 0] | (2, 3) | ( |
|
| [0, 1, 0, 0] | (3, 4) | ( |
|
| [0, 0, 1, 0] | (1, 2) | ( |
|
| [0, 0, 0, 1] | (1, 2) | ( |
|
| [1, 1, 0, 0] | (4, 1) | ( |
|
| [0, 1, 1, 0] | (3, 4) | ( |
|
| [0, 0, 1, 1] | (1, 2) | ( |
|
| [1, 1, 0, 1] | (4, 1) | ( |
|
| [1, 0, 1, 0] | (2, 3) | ( |
|
| [0, 1, 0, 1] | (3, 4) | ( |
|
| [1, 1, 1, 0] | (4, 1) | ( |
|
| [0, 1, 1, 1] | (3, 4) | ( |
|
| [1, 1, 1, 1] | (4, 1) | ( |
|
| [1, 0, 1, 1] | (2, 3) | ( |
|
| [1, 0, 0, 1] | (2, 3) | ( |
Codeword weight at the destination in ascending order.
|
|
|
|---|---|
| 3 | (3, 0) |
| 4 | (4, 0) |
| 5 | (5, 0) |
| 7 | (3, 4) |
| 8 | (3, 5), (4, 4) |
| 9 | (4, 5), (5, 4) |
| 10 | (5, 5) |
Number of codewords with for .
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0 | 0 | 7 | 56 |
|
| 0 | 0 | 7 | 49 |
|
| 0 | 0 | 7 | 56 |
Figure 3Symmetric structures of symbols (i) more positions are in the first part (ii) more positions are in the second part.
Process of choosing elements.
| wt( |
| 1st Part: 10 − | 2nd Part: |
|---|---|---|---|
| 6 | 4 | 4 | 0 |
| 7 | 3 | 3 | 0 |
| 4 | 3 | 1 | |
| 8 | 2 | 2 | 0 |
| 3 | 2 | 1 | |
| 4 | 2 | 2 | |
| 9 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| 2 | 1 | 1 | |
| 3 | 1 | 2 | |
| 4 | 1 | 3 | |
| 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 1 | 0 | 1 | |
| 2 | 0 | 2 | |
| 3 | 0 | 3 | |
| 4 | 0 | 4 |
Codeword weight at the destination in an ascending order.
| wt(| | (wt( |
|---|---|
| 6 | (6, 0) |
| 7 | (7, 0) |
| 8 | (8, 0) |
| 9 | (9, 0) |
| 10 | (10,0) |
| 14 | (6, 8) |
| 15 | (6,9), (7,8) |
| 16 | (6,10), (7,9), (8,8) |
| 17 | (6,11), (7,10), (8,9), (9,8) |
| 18 | (6,12), (7,11), (8,10), (9,9),(10,8) |
| 19 | (6,13), (7,12), (8,11), (9,10), (10,9), (11,8) |
| 20 | (6,14), (7,13), (8,12), (9,11), (10,10), (11,9), (12,8) |
Relationship between the number of codeword weight and .
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 90 |
|
| 0 | 0 | 15 | — |
|
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 90 |
|
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 90 |
|
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 60 |
|
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 9 |
|
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 10 |
Complexity comparison between Algorithm 1 and Algorithm 2.
| Parameters | Algorithm 1 | Algorithm 2 | Percentage Reduction, % |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 104,960 | 46,400 | 56 |
|
| 1,667,235,840 | 704,161,440 | 58 |
Parameter vectors corresponding to the three cases.
| Cases |
| Parameter Vectors |
|---|---|---|
| 1 |
|
|
| 2 |
|
|
|
| ||
|
| ||
|
| ||
| 3 |
|
|
Parameters utilized in the simulation.
| Parameters | Specification |
|---|---|
| Source coding |
|
| Relay coding |
|
| Effective code rate of destination | 1/4, 19/50, 51/126 |
| Channel model | Slow Rayleigh fading channel |
| MIMO configuration | STBC-SM: |
| MIMO detection | Maximum likelihood (ML) detection |
| GRS decoding algorithm | Euclidean decoding algorithm |
Figure 4Error performance for DGRSC−STBC−SM using and under different selection algorithms, and BPSK.
Optimized selection patterns corresponding to three different cases.
| Cases |
|
|
|---|---|---|
| 1 | [2, 3, 4] | [1, 3, 4] |
| 2 | —— | [5, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18] |
| 3 | —— | [0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 11, 12, 13, 16, 18, 19, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 31, 33, 34, 35, 40, 42, 44, 45, 47, 48, 49, 50] |
Figure 5Error performance for DGRSC−STBC−SM using and under different selection algorithms, , and 4−QAM.
Figure 6Error performance for DGRSC−STBC−SM using and under different selection algorithms, and 4−QAM.
Figure 7Comparisons between DGRSC−STBC−SM employing and and non−cooperative counterpart under Algorithm 1, and BPSK.
Figure 8Comparisons between DGRSC−STBC−SM with and and non−cooperative counterpart under Algorithm 2, , and 4−QAM.
Figure 9Comparisons between DGRSC−STBC−SM employing and and non−cooperative counterpart under Algorithm 2, and 4−QAM.
Figure 10Performance comparisons between the DGRSC−STBC−SM scheme (using 4−QAM and Algorithm 2) and the existing RSCC−SM [16] scheme (using 16−QAM and random selection) under the conditions of , and .
Figure 11Performance comparisons between the DGRSC−STBC−SM scheme (using Algorithm 2) and the existing RSCC−STBC−SM [22] scheme (using random selection) under the conditions of 4−QAM, , and .
Figure 12Error performance for DGRSC−STBC−SM scheme utilizing and with different numbers of receive antennas under Algorithm 1, and BPSK.