GESBERT et al.: FROM THEORY TO PRACTICE: AN OVERVIEW OF MIMO SPACE–TIME CODED WIRELESS SYSTEMS 285
or equivalent. Some results are available here [27] but they are
limited.
Some caution is necessary in interpreting the above equa-
tions. Capacity, as discussed here and in most MIMO work
[1], [3], is based on a “quasi-static” analysis where the channel
varies randomly from burst to burst. Within a burst the channel
is assumed fixed and it is also assumed that sufficient bits are
transmitted for the standard infinite time horizon of information
theory to be meaningful. A second note is that our discussion
will concentrate on single user MIMO systems but many results
also apply to multiuser systems with receive diversity. Finally,
the linear capacity growth is only valid under certain channel
conditions. It was originally derived for the independent and
identically distributed (i.i.d.) flat Rayleigh fading channel and
does not hold true for all cases. For example, if large numbers
of antennas are packed into small volumes, then the gains in
may become highly correlated and the linear relationship will
plateau out due to the effects of antenna correlation [28]–[30].
In contrast, other propagation effects not captured in (4) may
serve to reinforce the capacity gains of MIMO such as multi-
path delay spread. This was shown in particular in the case when
the transmit channel is known [4] but also in the case when it is
unknown [5].
More generally, the effect of the channel model is critical.
Environments can easily be chosen which give channels where
the MIMO capacities do not increase linearly with the numbers
of antennas. However, most measurements and models available
to date do give rise to channel capacities which are of the same
order of magnitude as the promised theory (see Section V). Also
the linear growth is usually a reasonable model for moderate
numbers of antennas which are not extremely close-packed.
B. Information Theoretic MIMO Capacity
1) Background: Since feedback is an important component
of wireless design (although not a necessary one), it is useful to
generalize the capacity discussion to cases that can encompass
transmitters having some a priori knowledge of channel. To this
end, we now define some central concepts, beginning with the
MIMO signal model
(5)
In (5),
is the received signal vector, is the
transmitted signal vector and is an vector of additive
noise terms, assumed i.i.d. complex Gaussian with each element
havinga varianceequal to
. For convenience we normalize the
noise power so that
in the remainder of this section. Note
that the system equation represents a single MIMO user com-
municating over a fading channel with additive white Gaussian
noise (AWGN). The only interference present is self-interfer-
ence between the input streams to the MIMO system. Some au-
thors have considered more general systems but most informa-
tion theoretic results can be discussed in this simple context, so
we use (5) as the basic system equation.
Let
denote the covariance matrix of , then the capacity of
the system described by (5) is given by [3], [21]
b/s/Hz (6)
where
holds to provide a global power constraint.
Note that for equal power uncorrelated sources
and (6) collapses to (4). This is optimal when is unknown at
the transmitter and the input distribution maximizing the mutual
information is the Gaussian distribution [3], [21]. With channel
feedback
may be known at the transmitter and the optimal
is not proportional to the identity matrix but is constructed from
a waterfilling argument as discussed later.
The form of equation (6) gives rise to two practical questions
of key importance. First, what is the effect of
? If we compare
the capacity achieved by
(equal power transmis-
sion or no feedback) and the optimal
based on perfect channel
estimation and feedback, then we can evaluate a maximum ca-
pacity gain due to feedback. The second question concerns the
effect of the
matrix. For the i.i.d. Rayleigh fading case we
have the impressive linear capacity growth discussed above. For
a wider range of channel models including, for example, corre-
lated fading and specular components, we must ask whether this
behavior still holds. Below we report a variety of work on the
effects of feedback and different channel models.
It is important to note that (4) can be rewritten as [3]
b/s/Hz (7)
where
are the nonzero eigenvalues of ,
, and
(8)
This formulation can be easily obtained from the direct use
of eigenvalue properties. Alternatively, we can decompose the
MIMO channel into m equivalent parallel SISO channels by
performing a singular value decomposition (SVD) of
[3],
[21]. Let the SVD be given by
, then and
are unitary and is diagonal with entries specified by
. Hence (5) can
be rewritten as
(9)
where
, and . Equation (9) repre-
sents the system as m equivalent parallel SISO eigen-channels
with signal powers given by the eigenvalues
.
Hence, the capacity can be rewritten in terms of the eigen-
values of the sample covariance matrix
. In the i.i.d. Rayleigh
fading case,
is also called a Wishart matrix. Wishart matrices
have been studied since the 1920s and a considerable amount is
known about them. For general
matrices a wide range of
limiting results are known [22], [31]–[34] as
or or both
tend to infinity. In the particular case of Wishart matrices, many
exact results are also available [31], [35]. There is not a great
deal of information about intermediate results (neither limiting
nor Wishart), but we are helped by the remarkable accuracy of
some asymptotic results even for small values of
, [36].
We now give a brief overview of exact capacity results,
broken down into the two main scenarios, where the channel is
either known or unknown at the transmitter. We focus on the
Authorized licensed use limited to: Harbin Institute of Technology. Downloaded on August 15,2010 at 07:50:36 UTC from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.