1

Spatial Diversity in Molecular Communications

arXiv:1707.07400v1 [cs.ET] 24 Jul 2017

Martin Damrath, Student Member, IEEE, H. Birkan Yilmaz, Member, IEEE,
Chan-Byoung Chae, Senior Member, IEEE, and Peter Adam Hoeher, Fellow, IEEE

Abstract—In this work, spatial diversity techniques in the area
of multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) diffusion-based molecular communications (DBMC) are investigated. For transmitterside spatial coding, Alamouti-type coding and repetition MIMO
coding are proposed and analyzed. At the receiver-side, selection
diversity, equal-gain combining, and maximum-ratio combining
are studied as combining strategies. Throughout the numerical
analysis, a symmetrical 2×2 MIMO-DBMC system is assumed.
Furthermore, a trained artificial neural network is utilized to
acquire the channel impulse responses. The numerical analysis
demonstrates that it is possible to achieve a diversity gain in
molecular communications. In addition, it is shown that for
MIMO-DBMC systems repetition MIMO coding is superior to
Alamouti-type coding.
Index Terms—Molecular communication via diffusion,
multiple-input multiple-output, spatial diversity, channel
modeling, artificial neural network.

I. I NTRODUCTION
OLECULAR communication (MC), a biologically inspired communication paradigm, utilizes molecules as
information carriers [1], [2]. MC is claimed to be a key
technology in realizing autonomous nanomachines (NMs) [3],
the size of which ranges from several nanometers up to a
few micrometers [4]. Due to their size, NMs are restricted
with respect to their energy budget and capabilities [5], [6],
while MC provides an energy-efficient biocompatible method
of communication. Consequently, the capability of NMs can
be enhanced by working as a swarm [2], [7]. MC can be
used in the industrial and consumer sectors, such as with food
and water quality control or intelligent textile fabrics. MC
can also be utilized in the environmental field, such as with
biodegradation or air pollution control. The main application,
however, is anticipated to be in the medical sector, where NMs
can be used for applications like targeted drug delivery, tissue
engineering, or health monitoring [3], [6].
Diffusion-based molecular communication (DBMC) [8] is a
passive form of MC. Following the law of diffusion, messenger
molecules propagate passively from a source to a sink. This
offers an energy efficient way of communication, because the
energy for propagation comes directly from the environment.
However, the communication channel is fundamentally different from the classical radio-based wireless communication
channel. In fact, radio waves propagate deterministically in
a given environment, whereas molecules perform a random
walk. As a result, the diffusive propagation channel possess

M

M. Damrath and P. A. Hoeher are with the Faculty of Engineering, Kiel
University, Germany, e-mail: {md, ph}@tf.uni-kiel.de.
H. B. Yilmaz and C.-B. Chae are with the Yonsei Institute of Convergence
Technology, School of Integrated Technology, Yonsei University, Korea, email: {birkan.yilmaz, cbchae}@yonsei.ac.kr.

a slowly decreasing stochastic channel impulse response.
Consequently, DBMC systems suffer from intersymbol interference (ISI) and unreliable transmission [9]. In multipleinput multiple-output (MIMO) scenarios, link reliability can be
improved by spatial diversity through multiple transmit and/or
receive antennas.
In classical wireless communications, MIMO techniques
already appertain to the state-of-the-art. In molecular communication, however, they have just rarely been considered.
To the best of our knowledge, the first conjunction between
MC and MIMO was given in [10]. The authors introduced
transmitter diversity, receiver-side diversity combining, and
spatial multiplexing to the area of DBMC. While focusing
on multi-user interference, the effect of ISI was paid little
attention throughout the work. In [11], several detection algorithms are proposed for spatial multiplexing scenarios in
DBMC. In contrast to [10], the authors in [11] took both, ISI
and interlink interference (ILI), in their channel model into
account. Furthermore, they extended their tabletop molecular
single-input single-output (SISO) testbed to a MIMO testbed.
The testbed was used to demonstrate an improvement with
respect to the data rate when applying spatial multiplexing.
The authors in [12] expanded a MC broadcast system by a
second absorbing receiver and studied the effect on the bit
error ratio (BER) and the channel capacity.
The focus of this paper is on a DBMC MIMO channel
taking ISI as well as ILI into account. The main contribution
is a study of different spatial diversity algorithms at the
transmitter and at the receiver sides. At the transmitter side, we
propose and analyze two different spatial coding techniques,
namely Alamouti-type coding and repetition MIMO coding.
At the receiver side, we focus on three different receiver combining strategies: Selection diversity, equal-gain combining,
and maximum-ratio combining. In terms of BER simulations,
we show the influence of key system parameters on the
system performance. Furthermore, we investigate the diversity
gain compared to a SISO scenario. Within the numerical
simulations, we used a trained artificial neural network (ANN)
to acquire the MIMO channel impulse responses.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: Section II summarizes a 2×2 MIMO system model that is assumed
throughout this work. Section III presents how MIMO channel
impulse responses are acquired by a trained ANN. Section IV
proposes, based on the system model, spatial coding techniques, as well as receiver combining strategies for molecular
MIMO systems. Section V presents the detection algorithms
that are applied in the numerical analysis in Section VI. When
necessary, the detection algorithms are adapted to the 2 × 2
MIMO scenario. Finally, Section VII summarizes the work

2

Tx1

Rx1
d

Tx

r

a

Rx

r
Tx2

Rx2

Fig. 1. Model of the diffusion-based molecular 2 × 2 MIMO system under
investigation [11].

and gives an outlook for future work.

B. Communication Channel

II. S YSTEM M ODEL
A. Topology and Propagation Model
The system model under investigation, shown in Fig. 1, is
similar to the system model introduced in [11] and [13]. It
contains a static transmitter Tx and a static receiver Rx within
a fluid medium. The Rx has two spherical receive apertures
Rx1 and Rx2 with radius r attached to its reflecting body. The
Tx consists of two point-emitters Tx1 and Tx2 . Subsequently,
the receive apertures and the emitters are called antennas. Tx1
and Tx2 are directly aligned to Rx1 and Rx2 . Consequently,
the distance between Tx1 and Rx1 , as well as that between Tx2
and Rx2 , is given as d. Furthermore, the separation distance
between Tx1 and Tx2 , as well as between Rx1 and Rx2 ,
is given as a. As a result, Tx and Rx form a symmetrical
2 × 2 MIMO system. The fluid medium is assumed to be
homogeneous, three-dimensional infinitely spatially extended,
and has no drift. Accordingly, it is described by the constant
diffusion coefficient D.
The molecules emitted by Tx1 and Tx2 propagate by Brownian motion, which is described by the Wiener process [14].
The Wiener process W(t) is characterized as follows:
• W(0) = 0,
• W(t) is almost surely continuous,
• W(t) has independent increments,
• W(t2 ) − W(t1 ) ∼ N (0, φ(t2 − t1 )) for 0 ≤ t1 ≤ t2 ,
where N (µ, σ 2 ) is the Gaussian distribution with mean µ
and variance σ 2 . Simulating the Brownian motion includes
consecutive steps in an n-dimensional space that obeys to
Wiener process dynamics. For an accurate simulation, time is
divided into sufficiently small time intervals (∆t) and at each
time interval molecules take random steps in each dimension.
In an n-dimensional space, a random step is given as:
∆r = (∆r1, ..., ∆rn )
∆ri ∼ N (0, 2D∆t) ∀i ∈ {1, .., n},

Rx1 and Rx2 are assumed to be perfect absorbing and
counting receivers. Accordingly, a diffusing molecule will be
counted and removed from the environment the first time it hits
to a receiving sphere. As a result, the time histogram of absorbed molecules at Rx1 and Rx2 follow the first passage time
concept. Assuming just a single absorbing spherical receiver
inside a 3-dimensional (3-D) environment, the probability that
a molecule hits the receiver until time t after its release is
given as [15]:


d −r
r
,
(2)
F(t) = erfc √
d
4Dt
where erfc(·) denotes the complementary error function. For
multiple absorbing spherical receivers, unfortunately, there do
not exists an equivalent closed-form expression. Consequently,
for a given MIMO scenario (2) has to be obtained by a
random-walk-based simulation. Alternatively, it can be acquired by using a trained ANN, as presented in Section III.

(1)

where ∆r and ∆ri correspond to random displacement vector
and displacement at the ith dimension.

The modulation scheme under investigation is on-off keying (OOK) [16]–[18]. Txi emits either no molecules or N
messenger molecules at the beginning of a symbol period
of length Ts to represent bit ui [k] = 0 or ui [k] = 1,
respectively. Accordingly, molecules emitted by Tx1 and Tx2
are of the same type. They are assumed to be the only
molecules in the medium; i.e., there is no background noise
caused by molecules that are initially present in the medium.
Furthermore, Rx is assumed to be synchronized with Tx in
time domain. As an example, time synchronization can be
achieved by an external signal like the human heart-beat or,
as suggested in [19], by releasing inhibitory molecules. In
addition, Rx1 and Rx2 perform strength/energy detection [20]–
[22]. Consequently, the number of hitting molecules at each
receive antenna is accumulated for each bit period separately.
The MIMO channel can be represented by a superposition of
all subchannels. Here, a subchannel is defined as the channel
between the transmit antenna Txi and the receive antenna
Rx j . Accordingly, each subchannel can be characterized by
the corresponding channel coefficients h ji [`] (0 ≤ ` ≤ L)
and can be represented by an equivalent discrete-time channel
model with the effective channel memory length L [23], [24].
As a result, superimposing all subchannels related to Rx j will
lead to the total number of received molecules at Rx j :
y j [k] =

NTx Õ
L
Õ

h ji [`]xi [k −`] + n j [k],

(3)

i=1 `=0

where NTx is the total number of transmitters, h ji [`] describes
the probability that a molecule hits Rx j during the `th time slot
after its emission at Txi , xi [k] is the discrete-time representation of the modulated data symbol transmitted by Txi at the
start of the kth transmission interval, and n j [k] describes the
amplitude dependent noise caused by the diffusive propagation
of the molecules. For OOK, which is assumed throughout this
paper, xi [k] is defined as
(
N
if ui [k] = 1
xi [k] =
(4)
0
if ui [k] = 0.

3

The event that a single molecule emitted by Txi is absorbed
by Rx j during a certain time period can be modeled by a
Bernoulli trial with success probability h ji [`]. Accordingly,
the absorption event of N molecules can be described by a
binomial distribution [25]. As a result, the distribution of (3)
follows the sum of several binomial distributions:
NTx Õ
L
Õ

y j [k] ∼
B xi [k −`], h ji [`] ,
(5)

Datasets (After Fitting Process)

Input parameters : [d, a, r, D]
Output parameters : [𝒃𝟏 , 𝒃𝟐 , 𝒃𝟑 , 𝒃𝟒 , 𝒃𝟓 , 𝒃𝟔 ]

Validation Dataset
Input parameters : [d, a, r, D]
Output parameters : [𝒃𝟏 , 𝒃𝟐 , 𝒃𝟑 , 𝒃𝟒 , 𝒃𝟓 , 𝒃𝟔 ]

i=1 `=0

where B (M, p) describe a binomial distribution with M number of trials and success probability p.
Assuming a SISO scenario, the channel coefficients can be
easily determined from (2):
h[`] = F((` + 1)Ts ) − F(`Ts ).

(6)

If there is more than one absorbing sphere present inside
the medium, h ji [`] have to be determined differently. One
method includes to run random-walk-based simulations, another method is to utilize a trained ANN as presented in
Section III.

ANN

Training Dataset

Input parameters

Trained
ANN

Predicted parameters:
[𝒃𝟏 , 𝒃𝟐 , 𝒃𝟑 , 𝒃𝟒 , 𝒃𝟓 , 𝒃𝟔 ]

Output parameters

ANN
Performance
Analysis

Fig. 2. The flowchart and the dataset structure of the ANN training process.
After curve fitting, the input-output pairs are fed to the training process, where
the input is (d, h, R, D) and the output is the model parameters (i.e., bi ’s).

III. ANN FOR C HANNEL M ODELING
We use the trained ANN from our previous work work [26]
to model a molecular MIMO channel. A trained ANN is able
to estimate the channel coefficients h ji [`] for a given MIMO
scenario. Please note that a trained ANN does not require any
simulation data while we need simulations for the training
phase. For training the ANN, we did extensive simulations
and utilized a modified SISO channel response function for
fitting to the simulation data and then we trained an ANN to
predict the modified SISO channel function parameters.
In a 2×2 molecular MIMO scenario, we have two different
spherical absorbing receivers – Rx1 and Rx2 – so that we
need to model, for each receive antenna, two different channel
impulse response functions per receive antenna, which depend
on the distances.
We consider a case in which only Tx1 emits molecules for
analyzing the cumulative channel impulse response functions
at Rx1 (i.e., F11 (·)) and at Rx2 (i.e., F21 (·)) for modeling the
received signal. Due to the rectangular symmetry, formulating F11 (·) and F21 (·) enables us to obtain F22 (·) = F11 (·)
and F12 (·) = F21 (·). The modified channel impulse response
function at Rx1 is given as follows:


d −r
r
,
(7)
F11 (t, b1, b2, b3 ) = b1 erfc
d
(4D)b2 t b3
where b1 , b2 , and b3 represent the model fitting parameters.
These model-fitting parameters are introduced so as to compensate for the discrepancy between the SISO and MIMO
models. Similarly we define the response at Rx2 (due to the
cross link interference) as follows:
!
√
d 2 +a2 − r
r
erfc
,
(8)
F21 (t, b4, b5, b6 ) = b4 √
(4D)b5 t b6
d 2 +a2
where b4 , b5 , and b6 are model fitting parameters.
To find the bi values, we use a nonlinear least squares
curve-fitting technique on the simulation data. These values

are the basis of the training and test datasets with the scenario
parameters (Fig. 2). Hence, the output of the curve-fitting
process consists of the model parameters for each specific
scenario. After forming the training and test datasets, the
training data is fed into the ANN training process. Note that
the trained ANN only requires the system parameters such as
d, a, r, and D (no simulation data).
In Figs. 3 and 4, we present the resulting channel impulse
functions with a time resolution of 0.001 s for simulation and
ANN technique. The received signal at the intended receiver
(i.e., F11 or F22 ) and the ILI signal from the simulations
are coherent with the ANN results. Therefore, we can utilize
the output of the ANN to obtain channel coefficients for
evaluating the number of received molecules and simulating
the consecutive data transmissions. Depending on the symbol
duration, we can evaluate the channel response for each
symbol slot.
In Fig. 5, we present the channel coefficients that are
acquired from extensive simulations and the trained ANN. We
plot the h11 [k] and h21 [k] values by utilizing F11 , F21 , and the
symbol duration. The first observation is that the simulation
and ANN results match well. Our results validate and support
the usage of ANN to obtain the channel coefficients. Second,
we observe that without equalization the symbol duration of
0.4 s is not sufficient for d = 25 µm. Thus, we clearly see the
effect of distance on the channel coefficients while designing
an MC system. For a d = 25 µm case (stems with triangle
marker), the channel coefficient value at the current symbol
slot is smaller than the first ISI symbol slot, which is also
supported by Fig. 4 due to the peak time. Therefore, with the
help of the trained ANN, we are able to design a suitable
symbol duration Ts for the cases of interest.

4

0.7
F : Simulation Data
21

F : ANN Output

0.04

11

h 11 [k]

F 21 : ANN Output

0.5

F ij(t+"t) - F ij(t)

Desired Signal
ISI from Tx1
d=20 7m: ANN
d=20 7m: Simulation
d=25 7m: ANN
d=25 7m: Simulation

0.05

11

F : Simulation Data

0.6

0.03
0.02

0.4

0.01
0.3

0
0

0.2

1

2

0.1

d=20 7m

4

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

0.04

2

h 21 [k]

0

ILI Region
ISI from Tx1
d=20 7m: ANN
d=20 7m: Simulation
d=25 7m: ANN
d=25 7m: Simulation

0.05

0

Time (s)

Fig. 3. ANN and simulation data comparison for channel impulse response
functions after Tx1 emits 3000 molecules (d = 20 µm, a = 13 µm, r = 5 µm,
D = 200 µm2 /s, ∆t = 0.001 s)

0.03
0.02
0.01
0

0.35

0

1

2

3

4

Symbol Slot - k

F 11 : Simulation Data
F 21 : Simulation Data

0.3

F 11 : ANN Output

Fig. 5. Comparison of channel coefficients from ANN and simulation data
for different distances (a = 13 µm, r = 5 µm, D = 200 µm2 /s, Ts = 0.4 s)

F : ANN Output
21

0.25

F ij(t+"t) - F ij(t)

3

Symbol Slot - k

0.2

strategies – selection diversity, equal-gain combining, and
maximum-ratio combining – are suggested.

0.15

A. Alamouti-type Coding

0.1

0.05

d=25 7m
0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2

Time (s)

Fig. 4. ANN and simulation data comparison for channel impulse response
functions after Tx1 emits 3000 molecules (d = 25 µm, a = 13 µm, r = 5 µm,
D = 200 µm2 /s, ∆t = 0.001 s)

IV. S PATIAL D IVERSITY
In the case of multiple antennas at the transmitter and/or
receiver side, it is well-known from classical wireless communication that a spatial diversity gain can be achieved.
This gain usually comes from spatial coding along multiple
transmit antennas and/or receiver combining strategies given
multiple receive antennas. In the sense of spatial coding,
the same information is transmitted over several antennas.
The information is typically represented by a sequence of
data symbols s, which is generated by mapping the binary
data sequence u onto data symbols. Below we present two
different spatial coding techniques – Alamouti-type coding
and repetition MIMO coding. For receiver-side combining

The Alamouti scheme [27] is an orthogonal space-time
block code that was originally invented for two transmit antennas. Its structure can be illustrated by the 2×2 transmission
matrix


sk
sk+1
G=
,
(9)
∗
−sk+1
sk∗
where sk denotes the kth data symbol of s. The rows of
G are related to the two consecutive transmission intervals
[kTs (k+1)Ts ] and [(k+1)Ts (k+2)Ts ], respectively. The columns
of G correspond to the two transmit antennas Tx1 and Tx2 ,
respectively. Accordingly, in the first time slot, x1 [k] = sk is
transmitted via Tx1 and x2 [k] = sk+1 is transmitted simultane∗
ously via Tx2 . In the second time slot, x1 [k+1] = −sk+1
is trans∗
mitted via Tx1 and x2 [k+1] = sk is transmitted simultaneously
via Tx2 . As a result, the information of both data symbols is
spread over both transmit antennas, which provides a spatial
diversity gain. Note that GH G = cI, where GH is the Hermitian
of matrix G, c is a constant factor, and I denotes the identity
matrix. Consequently, the Alamouti scheme is an orthogonal
space-time block code for complex data symbols. With help of
orthogonality, ILI can be canceled completely at the receiver
side. Thus, the realization of a maximum-likelihood detector
can be simplified, which makes Alamouti scheme popular in
radio-based communication systems without ISI.

5

In the case of ISI, however, orthogonality is not maintained
any more. As a result, we must apply more complex detection
algorithms such as maximum-likelihood sequence estimation
(MLSE) [28]. Orthogonality can also be maintained by modifying the Alamouti transmission scheme, as shown in [29].
There is still a need, though, for equalization algorithms like
MLSE. Furthermore, the modification introduces additional
errors at the edges of the proposed transmission blocks.
The Alamouti scheme assumes complex data symbols that
can either be positive or negative. In MC, however, the
data symbols are typically represented by the amount of
emitted molecules. Thus, the data symbols are non-negative
and real-valued. Consequently, (9) has to be modified to an
Alamouti-type code [30] that avoids minus signs and complex
conjugation. The focus of this work is on OOK. Accordingly,
following the principle of (4), data bits are mapped onto
data symbols sk ∈ {0, N } [16]–[18]. As suggested in [30],
the adaptation to an Alamouti-type code can be done by the
following two steps:
1) Since there are only real-valued integer values, the
complex conjugate operation can be discarded.
2) The negative symbols can be replaced by the inverse
symbol s̄k := N − sk .
Applying those two steps to (9) leads to the transmission
matrix of the Alamouti-type code:


sk
sk+1
G=
.
(10)
N − sk+1 sk
In [30], a maximum likelihood detection metric was derived.
Note that in molecular communication, however, the system
is affected by ISI and the orthogonality of the Alamouti-type
code is no longer maintained. Thus, more complex detection
algorithms like MLSE have to be applied for detection.
B. Repetition MIMO Coding
Repetition MIMO coding [31] offers a simple intuitive
alternative to orthogonal Alamouti scheme. In contrast to the
Alamouti scheme, the information is coded only in the spatial
domain, while the time domain is not exploited. In detail,
exactly the same data symbol is transmitted via each transmit
antenna at the same time. Accordingly for a 2 × 2 MIMO
scenario, the transmission matrix is defined as


G = sk sk .
(11)
Note that there is no orthogonality in the code and ILI cannot
be canceled out at the receiver side. The ILI, however, will
have a constructive influence of the signal strength. As a result,
even in the presence of ISI, SISO detection algorithms can be
used at the receiver side.
C. Receiver Combining
If there is more than one receive antenna, the received signals from each antenna have to be combined/selected, before
detection can be performed. Normally, the selection/combining
is done in one of three ways. With selection diversity (SD),
the strongest signal of all antennas is selected for detection. In

a molecular communication system in conjunction with OOK
and ISI, it is hard to determine which antenna receives the
strongest signal. For u[k] = 0 the signal with the minimum
number of received molecules would be the strongest one,
while for u[k] = 1 the signal with the maximum number of
received molecules would be the strongest one. In this work, a
symmetrical scenario is considered. Hence, the expected signal
strength at both receive antennas is equal. Therefore, without
loss of generality, Rx1 is selected in the case of SD:
ySD [k] = y1 [k]
L
L
Õ
Õ
=
h11 [`]x1 [k −`] +
h12 [`]x2 [k −`] + n1 [k].
`=0

`=0

(12)
Another combining strategy is equal-gain combining (EGC),
where the signals of all receive antennas are equally weighted
and combined. Adjusting the weighting factors to the corresponding channel quality leads to maximum-ratio combining
(MRC), which is equal to a maximum-likelihood receiver.
Consequently, channel knowledge is necessary at the receiver
side. However, in the case of a symmetrical scenario, which
leads to equal channels at both receive antennas, EGC is equal
to MRC. As a result, EGC is considered in the following:
yEGC [k] = y1 [k] + y2 [k].

(13)

Due to the symmetrical system setting, the channel description
for EGC can be further simplified. Considering that h11 [`] =
h22 [`] and h12 [`] = h21 [`], (13) can be restated as
yEGC [k] =

L
Õ

h[`] (x1 [k −`] + x2 [k −`]) + n[k],

(14)

`=0

where h[`]  h11 [`] + h12 [`] and n[k]  n1 [k] + n2 [k].
V. D ETECTION A LGORITHMS
For the bit error analysis throughout this paper, we consider
and adopt from [32] three different detection algorithms. First
of all, the common fixed threshold detector (FTD)
(
1
if y[k] > η
û[k] =
(15)
0
if y[k] ≤ η
is used, where the threshold η is chosen to be optimal in terms
of minimizing the BER. The optimal threshold is determined
by means of an exhaustive search. Second, the low-complexity
adaptive threshold detector (ATD) is applied:
(
1
if y[k] > y[k −1]
û[k] =
(16)
0
if y[k] ≤ y[k −1].
Note that ATD does not need any channel knowledge and
inherently benefits from ISI. The third algorithm is maximumlikelihood sequence estimation. It is applied with the suboptimal squared Euclidean distance branch metric
!2
L
Õ
γ(y[k]| [ũ[k], . . . , ũ[k − L]]) = y[k] −
N ĥ[`]ũ[k −`] .
`=0

(17)

6

During the numerical analysis, it is assumed that ĥ[`] are
equal to the channel coefficients utilized in the equivalent
discrete-time channel model. Depending on the considered
spatial coding and receiver combining strategy ĥ[`] has to be
adapted. For a SISO system, ĥ[`] is set equal to the channel
coefficients from (6). For repetition coding it yields ĥ[`] = h[`]
for SD and ĥ[`] = 2h[`] for EGC, where h[`] is defined as in
(14).
In Alamouti-type coding, the information of two symbols
is spread over two consecutive time slots. Thus, the branch
metric can be evaluated jointly over both time slots. As a
result, the branch metric has to be further adapted.
As an example, we present an Alamouti-type 2×2 MIMO
transmission scenario for L = 1 as follows:
TABLE I
T RANSMISSION EXAMPLE FOR A LAMOUTI - TYPE 2×2 MIMO SCENARIO .
Discrete time step k
x1 [k]
x2 [k]

k −2
sk−2
sk−1

k −1
N − sk−1
sk−2

k
sk
sk+1

k +1
N − sk+1
sk

Therefore, we need to consider the transmission matrix G in
(10) including the corresponding ISI terms:


sk
sk+1 N − sk−1 sk−2
G1 =
,
(18)
N − sk+1 sk
sk
sk+1
where G L represents the transmission matrix G with L ISI
terms. In our example, the last two columns correspond to the
transmitted signal in the corresponding previous time slot by
Tx1 and Tx2 , respectively. Note that the first row’s previous
slot is k−1 and the second row’s previous slot is k. In this case,
the number of received molecules can be written as follows:
 h11 [0] h21 [0]




 h12 [0] h22 [0] 

y1 [k]
y2 [k]
 + N1 N2 ,

= G1 

y1 [k +1] y2 [k +1]
h
[1]
h
[1]
21

 11
 h12 [1] h22 [1]


(19)
where Ni = [ ni [k] ni [k + 1] ]T . Assuming a symmetrical
scenario and EGC, the branch metric can be adapted as shown
in (20).
VI. N UMERICAL R ESULTS
In this section, results from the numerical analysis are
presented. To analyze the effect of spatial diversity, BER

TABLE II
S IMULATION PARAMETERS USED FOR ANALYSIS . T HE DEFAULT
PARAMETERS ARE IN BOLD FACE .
Parameter
N
Ts [s]
(L + 1)Ts [s]
d [µm]
a [µm]
D [µm2 /s]
r [µm]
K
R

Value
{500, 1000, 1500, 2000}
{0.48, 0.6, 0.8, 1.2}
2.4
{10, 15, 20, 25}
{11, 13, 15, 17}
{50, 100, 150, 200}
5
106
1000

simulations are performed for SISO and 2×2 MIMO scenarios.
In detail, the impact of number of molecules N, symbol
duration Ts , transmission distance d, separation distance a,
and diffusion coefficient D on the BER is shown. The simulation parameters are summarized in Table II, where K is
the bit sequence length for one channel realization and R
is the total number of channel realizations. Throughout the
simulations, it is assumed that the remaining ISI is negligible
after (L + 1)Ts = 2.4 s. Accordingly, the channel memory
length L ∈ {1, 2, 3, 4} varies with different Ts . In the SISO
scenarios, there is just a single transmit and a single receive
antenna in the environment. Furthermore, we set the number of
emitted molecules N to be twice as large as that in the MIMO
scenarios. This guarantees a fair comparison between SISO
and 2×2 MIMO scenarios by means of transmitting energy.
A. Effect of Number of Emitted Molecules
In Fig. 6a, the effect of the number of emitted molecules
on the BER is shown. If N is increased, more molecules reach
the receiving spheres. Furthermore, the amplitude dependent
diffusion noise is relatively getting less. Consequently, N is
proportional to the signal strength. As a result, all detection algorithms perform better, when N is increased. The
simple FTD suffers from the strong ISI in the system and
is not able to detect in a reasonable manner with its fixed
threshold. The ATD, in contrast, benefits from the ISI in the
system [32]. Consequently, ATD outperforms FTD in terms
of BER. The best BER performance is achieved by MLSE,
because it implies channel equalization, which counteracts
ISI. In the case of FTD, spatial diversity does not bring any
enhancement compared to the SISO case for the parameters
under investigation. In contrast, repetition MIMO with EGC
for ATD slightly outperforms SISO transmission in a region
with few molecules. If the power normalization of the SISO
case (the emitted number of molecules in the SISO case is
twice as large as in the 2 × 2 MIMO case) is neglected,
even repetition MIMO in conjunction with SD achieves a
BER slightly below SISO performance. However, the spatial
diversity gain for ATD is not significant. For MLSE, the spatial
diversity gain can be more clearly observed. The maximum
BER improvement of repetition MIMO with EGC over the
SISO case is by a factor of almost 10, yet repetition MIMO
with SD shows a degradation by a factor of approximately 10
to 102 . However, neglecting the power normalization leads
to a maximum improvement of almost 400 for EGC and
of approximately 10 for SD. Interestingly, for the system
under investigation, Alamouti-type coding does not show any
diversity gain. This can be explained by the ILI in the system.
Note that ILI in repetition MIMO constructively contribute to
the signal strength. For Alamouti-type coding, however, the
ILI acts competitive and thus more destructive.
B. Effect of Symbol Duration
Fig. 6b depicts the effect of symbol duration on the BER
performance. In general, an increasing symbol duration is beneficial for the communication system, because the molecules
have more time to hit the Rx during their desired symbol

7

γ(y[k], y[k +1]| ũ[k +1], ũ[k], ũ[k −1], ũ[k −2]) = [y[k] − N h[0](ũ[k] + ũ[k +1]) − N h[1](ũ[k −2] − ũ[k −1] + 1)]2
+ [y[k +1] − N h[0](ũ[k] − ũ[k +1] + 1) − N h[1](ũ[k] + ũ[k +1])]2

duration and Rx accumulates over a longer time interval. As a
result, the effect of ISI lessens and detection performance increases. The only exception is ATD, which inherently benefits
from ISI. Therefore, in the scenario under investigation, ATD
is superior to FTD for Ts ≤ 0.8 s. For Ts > 0.8 s, the BER
of ATD increases slightly, whereas the BER of FTD improves
remarkably. As expected, the best detection performance is
achieved by MLSE. While there is no significant gain from
spatial diversity in conjunction with ATD, repetition MIMO in
conjunction with EGC and FTD outperforms the SISO case by
a factor of almost 10 at Ts = 1.2 s. As shown in Section VI-A,
for MLSE the size of the gap between repetition MIMO with
EGC and that of a SISO system is larger by a factor of
almost 10. Furthermore, MLSE repetition MIMO with SD
does not show a diversity gain, at least not for the assumed
power normalization. As already discussed in Section VI-A,
Alamouti-type coding with EGC offers no improvement over
the SISO scenario.
C. Effect of Transmission Distance
In Fig. 6c, the effect of the transmission distance on the
system performance is shown. In general, shorter transmission
distances provide that more molecules are absorbed by Rx,
which increases the signal strength. If the symbol duration
is fixed, it also reduces the effect of ISI inside the system. If
transmission distance decreases, the BER of all detection algorithms decreases (with the exception of ATD, which inherently
benefits from ISI). For long distances (20 µm ≤ d ≤ 25 µm),
ATD detection performance is superior to FTD, but for short
distances (d ≤ 20 µm), FTD is superior to ATD. As expected,
MLSE achieves the best BER performance for all distances
under consideration. As in Section VI-A and Section VI-B,
there is no significant spatial diversity gain regarding ATD
for the scenario under investigation. Furthermore, the spatial
diversity gain of repetition MIMO with EGC and MLSE is by
a factor of almost 10, while Alamouti-type coding offers no
gain at all. In contrast to Fig. 6b, there is also no diversity
gain observed for FTD.
D. Effect of Antenna Separation
In Fig. 6d, the effect of the antenna separation on the MIMO
system performance is shown. All MIMO schemes show a
similar trend. If the antenna separation is increased, the BER
is decreased. The reason for that is in the spatial gain from
the ILI, because increasing a will lead to a decreasing ILI.
Note that even for a = 17 µm there is a spatial diversity gain
of repetition MIMO with EGC and MLSE.
E. Effect of Diffusion Coefficient
In Fig. 6e, the effect of the diffusion coefficient on the
system performance is shown. In general, D describes the

(20)

mobility of a particle inside a medium. Accordingly, D has
an impact on the channel impulse response. In fact, a larger
diffusion coefficient leads to a more spiky channel impulse
response, whereas a lower diffusion coefficient leads to a
more flat channel impulse response. As a result, the ISI is
decreased when D is increased. Consequently, all investigated
detection algorithms perform better for larger D. While the
spatial diversity gain from repetition MIMO with EGC for
ATD increases with D, it decreases with FTD. For the scenario
under investigation, the difference between SISO MLSE and
repetition MIMO with EGC and MLSE is constant by a factor
of approximately 10. As can be seen in Fig. 6a-6d, there is no
diversity gain obtained by Alamouti-type coding.
VII. C ONCLUSION
In this paper, we have presented a diffusion-based molecular
2 × 2 MIMO communication system in a 3-D environment.
Channel coefficients were obtained from a trained ANN and
incorporated into performance evaluations. Motivated from the
potential of spatial diversity in classical wireless communication, this paper introduced different spatial diversity algorithms
to the area of MC and analyzed their performances. An the
transmitter side, Alamouti-type coding and repetition MIMO
coding were proposed. An the receiver side, selection diversity, equal-gain combining, and maximum-ratio combining
were presented as receiver combining strategies. In addition,
fixed threshold detection, adaptive threshold detection and
maximum-likelihood sequence estimation were adapted to the
2×2 MIMO scenario.
The diversity gain was studied by means of BER simulations, where different system parameters were varied to
show the effect on the system performance. Similar to the
SISO case, MLSE outperforms FTD and ATD, while ATD
outperforms FTD when more ISI is present, since ATD profits
from ISI. Furthermore, FTD and MLSE performance benefit
from a higher number of emitted molecules, a larger symbol
duration, a shorter transmission distance and a higher diffusion
coefficient. A significant spatial diversity gain can only be
achieved by repetition MIMO with EGC and MLSE for the
scenario under investigation. In contrast, Alamouti-type coding
fails to show a practical performance in the context of MC.
Even in conjunction with MLSE, it suffers from the discrepancy between averaged and actual channel coefficients. Spatial
diversity gain is dependent on the antennas separation distance.
The simulation showed that the best BER performance is
achieved, when the receive and transmit antennas are as close
together as possible.
Future work will include the realization of spatial diversity
in a practical system, analyzing spatial diversity for unsymmetrical cases, and expanding the system to a higher number
of transmit and/or receive antennas.

10−1

10−1

10−2

10−2

10−3

10−3
BER

BER

8

10−4

10−4

10−5

10−5

10−6

10−6

10−7

800

600

1000

1200

1400

1800

1600

2000

10−7

0.5

0.6

0.7

N

10−2

10−2

10−3

10−3
BER

BER

10−1

10−4

10−5

10−6

10−6

18

16

20

22

10−7
11

24

1.2

12

13

14

15

16

17

a in µm

d in µm

(d) Variation of separation distance.

(c) Variation of transmission distance.

Fixed threshold detector (FTD)
Adaptive threshold detector (ATD)
MLSE
SISO
Repetition MIMO - SD
Repetition MIMO - EGC
Alamouti-type - EGC

10−1
10−2
10−3
BER

1.1

10−4

10−5

14

1

(b) Variation of symbol duration.

10−1

12

0.9

Ts in s

(a) Variation of numbers of molecules.

10−7
10

0.8

10−4
10−5
10−6
10−7

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

D in µm2 /s
(e) Variation of diffusion coefficient.
Fig. 6. Bit error rate performance as a function of the number of molecules (a), symbol duration (b), transmitting distance (c), separation distance (d), and
diffusion coefficient (e). If the corresponding parameter is not varying, it is fixed to N = 1000, Ts = 0.6 s, d = 20 µm, a = 11 µm, and D = 100 µm2 /s.

9

R EFERENCES
[1] N. Farsad, H. B. Yilmaz, A. Eckford, C.-B. Chae, and W. Guo, “A comprehensive survey of recent advancements in molecular communication,”
IEEE Commun. Surveys Tuts., vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 1887–1919, 2016.
[2] I. F. Akyildiz, F. Brunetti, and C. Blázquez, “Nanonetworks: A new
communication paradigm,” Elsevier Comput. Netw., vol. 52, no. 12, pp.
2260–2279, 2008.
[3] B. Atakan, O. B. Akan, and S. Balasubramaniam, “Body area nanonetworks with molecular communications in nanomedicine,” IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 28–34, Jan. 2012.
[4] Y. Xia, P. Yang, Y. Sun, Y. Wu, B. Mayers, B. Gates, Y. Yin, F. Kim, and
H. Yan, “One-dimensional nanostructures: synthesis, characterization,
and applications,” Wiley Adv. Mater., vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 353–389, 2003.
[5] T. Nakano, M. Moore, A. Enomoto, and T. Suda, “Molecular communication technology as a biological ICT,” in Springer Bio. Func. Inf. and
Commun. Technol., 2011, pp. 49–86.
[6] T. Nakano, A. W. Eckford, and T. Haraguchi, Molecular communication.
Cambridge University Press, 2013.
[7] W. Guo, T. Asyhari, N. Farsad, H. B. Yilmaz, B. Li, A. Eckford, and
C.-B. Chae, “Molecular communications: channel model and physical
layer techniques,” IEEE Wireless Commun. Mag., vol. 23, no. 4, pp.
120–127, 2016.
[8] M. Pierobon and I. F. Akyildiz, “A physical end-to-end model for molecular communication in nanonetworks,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun.,
vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 602–611, May 2010.
[9] A. Noel, K. C. Cheung, and R. Schober, “Optimal receiver design for
diffusive molecular communication with flow and additive noise,” IEEE
Trans. NanoBiosci., vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 350–362, 2014.
[10] L.-S. Meng, P.-C. Yeh, K.-C. Chen, and I. F. Akyildiz, “MIMO communications based on molecular diffusion,” in Proc. IEEE Glob. Commun.
Conf. (GLOBECOM), Dec. 2012, pp. 5380–5385.
[11] B.-H. Koo, C. Lee, H. B. Yilmaz, N. Farsad, A. Eckford, and C.-B.
Chae, “Molecular MIMO: From theory to prototype,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas
Commun., vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 600–614, Mar. 2016.
[12] Y. Lu, M. D. Higgins, A. Noel, M. S. Leeson, and Y. Chen, “The effect
of two receivers on broadcast molecular communication systems,” IEEE
Trans. NanoBiosci., vol. 15, no. 8, pp. 891–900, Dec. 2016.
[13] C. Lee, B. Koo, N.-R. Kim, B. Yilmaz, N. Farsad, A. Eckford, and C.B. Chae, “Molecular MIMO communication link,” in Proc. IEEE Int.
Conf. on Comput. Commun. Workshops (INFOCOM WKSHPS), 2015,
pp. 13–14.
[14] K. Srinivas, A. W. Eckford, and R. S. Adve, “Molecular communication
in fluid media: The additive inverse Gaussian noise channel,” IEEE
Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 58, no. 7, pp. 4678–4692, 2012.
[15] H. B. Yilmaz, A. C. Heren, T. Tugcu, and C.-B. Chae, “Threedimensional channel characteristics for molecular communications with
an absorbing receiver,” IEEE Commun. Lett., vol. 18, no. 6, pp. 929–932,
Jun. 2014.
[16] M. S. Kuran, H. B. Yilmaz, T. Tugcu, and I. F. Akyildiz, “Modulation
techniques for communication via diffusion in nanonetworks,” in Proc.
IEEE Int. Conf. on Commun. (ICC), 2011, pp. 1–5.
[17] H. B. Yilmaz and C.-B. Chae, “Simulation study of molecular communication systems with an absorbing receiver: Modulation and ISI
mitigation techniques,” Elsevier Simul. Model. Pract. Theory, vol. 49,
pp. 136–150, 2014.
[18] N.-R. Kim and C.-B. Chae, “Novel modulation techniques using isomers as messenger molecules for nano communication networks via
diffusion,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 31, no. 12, pp. 847–856,
2013.
[19] M. J. Moore and T. Nakano, “Oscillation and synchronization of
molecular machines by the diffusion of inhibitory molecules,” IEEE
Trans. NanoTechnol., vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 601–608, Jul. 2013.
[20] M. U. Mahfuz, D. Makrakis, and H. Mouftah, “Spatiotemporal distribution and modulation schemes for concentration-encoded medium-tolong range molecular communication,” in Proc. IEEE Biennial Symp.
on Commun. (QBSC), May 2010, pp. 100–105.
[21] M. U. Mahfuz, D. Makrakis, and H. T. Mouftah, “On the characterization
of binary concentration-encoded molecular communication in nanonetworks,” Elsevier Nano Commun. Netw., vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 289–300, 2010.
[22] I. Llatser, A. Cabellos-Aparicio, M. Pierobon, and E. Alarcón, “Detection techniques for diffusion-based molecular communication,” IEEE J.
Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 31, no. 12, pp. 726–734, Dec. 2013.
[23] M. Damrath, S. Korte, and P. Hoeher, “Equivalent discrete-time channel
modeling for molecular communication with emphasize on an absorbing
receiver,” IEEE Trans. NanoBiosci., vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 60–68, Jan. 2017.

[24] G. Genc, Y. E. Kara, H. B. Yilmaz, and T. Tugcu, “ISI-aware modeling
and achievable rate analysis of the diffusion channel,” IEEE Commun.
Lett., vol. 20, no. 9, pp. 1729–1732, 2016.
[25] H. B. Yilmaz and C.-B. Chae, “Arrival modelling for molecular communication via diffusion,” IET Electron. Lett., vol. 50, no. 23, pp. 1667–
1669, 2014.
[26] C. Lee, H. B. Yilmaz, C.-B. Chae, N. Farsad, and A. Goldsmith,
“Machine learning based channel modeling for molecular MIMO communications,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1704.00870, Apr. 2017.
[27] S. M. Alamouti, “A simple transmit diversity technique for wireless
communications,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 16, no. 8, pp. 1451–
1458, Oct. 1998.
[28] J. Mietzner and P. A. Hoeher, “Boosting the performance of wireless
communication systems: theory and practice of multiple-antenna techniques,” IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 42, no. 10, pp. 40–47, Oct. 2004.
[29] E. Lindskog and A. Paulraj, “A transmit diversity scheme for channels
with intersymbol interference,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. on Commun.
(ICC), 2000, pp. 307–311.
[30] M. K. Simon and V. A. Vilnrotter, “Alamouti-type space-time coding for
free-space optical communication with direct detection,” IEEE Trans.
Wireless Commun., vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 35–39, Jan. 2005.
[31] S. G. Wilson, M. Brandt-Pearce, Q. Cao, and M. Baedke, “Optical
repetition MIMO transmission with multipulse PPM,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas
Commun., vol. 23, no. 9, pp. 1901–1910, Sep. 2005.
[32] M. Damrath and P. A. Hoeher, “Low-complexity adaptive threshold
detection for molecular communication,” IEEE Trans. NanoBiosci.,
vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 200–208, Apr. 2016.

PLACE
PHOTO
HERE

Martin Damrath (S’16) received the M.Sc. degree
in electrical engineering from the University of Kiel,
Germany, in 2014. Since 2014, he is working as a
research and teaching assistant in the Information
and Coding Theory Lab towards his Dr.-Ing. (Ph.D.)
degree in the Faculty of Engineering, University of
Kiel. His current research interests include highorder modulation schemes, superposition modulation, and diffusion-based molecular communication.

H. Birkan Yilmaz (S’10-M’12) received his M.Sc.
and Ph.D. degrees in Computer Engineering from
Bogazici University in 2006 and 2012, respectively,
his B.S. degree in Mathematics in 2002. Currently,
PLACE
he works as a post-doctoral researcher at Yonsei
PHOTO
Institute of Convergence Technology, Yonsei UniHERE
versity, Korea. He was awarded TUBITAK National
Ph.D. Scholarship during his Ph.D. studies. He was
the co-recipient of the best demo award in IEEE
INFOCOM (2015) and best paper award in ISCC
(2012) and AICT (2010). He is a member of TMD
(Turkish Mathematical Society). His research interests include cognitive radio,
spectrum sensing, molecular communications, and detection and estimation
theory.

10

Chan-Byoung Chae (SM’12) is the Underwood
Distinguished Professor in the School of Integrated
Technology, Yonsei University. Before joining Yonsei University, he was with Bell Labs, AlcatelPLACE
Lucent, Murray Hill, New Jersey from 2009 to 2011,
PHOTO
as a member of technical staff, and Harvard UniverHERE
sity, Cambridge, Massachusetts from 2008 to 2009,
as a postdoctoral research fellow. He received his
Ph.D. degree in electrical and computer engineering
from The University of Texas at Austin in 2008,
where he was a member of the Wireless Networking
and Communications Group (WNCG). Prior to joining UT, he was a research
engineer at the Telecommunications R&D Center, Samsung Electronics,
Suwon, Korea, from 2001 to 2005. He has served/serves as an Editor for the
IEEE Communications Magazine (2016-present), the IEEE Trans. on Wireless
Communications (2012 present), the IEEE Trans. on Molecular, Biological,
and Multi-scale Comm. (2015-present), the IEEE Wireless Communications
Letters (2016-present), and the IEEE/KICS Jour. of Comm. Networks (2012present).
He was the recipient/co-recipient of the Underwood Distinguished Professor
Award (2016) and the Outstanding Teaching Award (2016) from Yonsei
University, the Yonam Research Award from LG Yonam Foundation (2016),
the Outstanding Professor Award from IITP (2016), the Best Young Professor
Award from the College of Engineering, Yonsei University (2015), the IEEE
INFOCOM Best Demo Award (2015), the IEIE/IEEE Joint Award for Young
IT Engineer of the Year (2014), the KICS Haedong Young Scholar Award
(2013), the IEEE Signal Processing Magazine Best Paper Award (2013), the
IEEE ComSoc AP Outstanding Young Researcher Award (2012), the IEEE
VTS Dan. E. Noble Fellowship Award (2008), two Gold Prizes (1st) in the
14th/19th Humantech Paper Contest. He also received the Korea Government
Fellowship (KOSEF) during his Ph.D. studies.

Peter Adam Hoeher (F’14) received Dipl.-Ing.
(M.Sc.) and Dr.-Ing. (Ph.D.) degrees in Electrical
Engineering from the RWTH Aachen University,
Aachen, Germany, and the University of KaiserPLACE
slautern, Kaiserslautern, Germany, in 1986 and 1990,
PHOTO
respectively. From October 1986 to September 1998,
HERE
he was with the German Aerospace Center (DLR),
Oberpfaffenhofen, Germany. From December 1991
to November 1992 he was on leave at AT&T Bell
Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ, USA. In October
1998 he joined the University of Kiel, Germany,
where he is a full professor of electrical and information engineering. His
research interests are in the general area of communication theory and
applied information theory with applications in wireless communications
and underwater communications, including advanced digital modulation techniques, channel coding, iterative processing, equalization, multiuser detection,
interference cancellation, channel estimation, and joint communication and
navigation. Dr. Hoeher received the Hugo-Denkmeier-Award ’90 and the ITG
Award 07. Between 1999 and 2006 he served as an Associated Editor for
IEEE Trans. on Communications. Since 2014 he is an IEEE Fellow “for
contributions to decoding and detection that include reliability information.”

