Finite-Blocklength Bounds on the Maximum
Coding Rate of Rician Fading Channels with
Applications to Pilot-Assisted Transmission

arXiv:1705.02816v3 [] 23 May 2017

Johan Östman, Giuseppe Durisi, and Erik G. Ström
Dept. of Signals and Systems, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden

Abstract—We present nonasymptotic bounds on the maximum
coding rate achievable over a Rician block-fading channel for
a fixed packet size and a fixed packet error probability. Our
bounds, which apply to the scenario where no a priori channel
state information is available at the receiver, allow one to quantify
the tradeoff between the rate gains resulting from the exploitation
of time-frequency diversity and the rate loss resulting from fast
channel variations and pilot-symbol overhead.

I. I NTRODUCTION
To enable future autonomous systems such as connected
vehicles, automated factories, and smart grids, next-generation
wireless communication systems must be able to support the
sporadic transmission of short data packets within stringent
latency and reliability constraints [1], [2]. Classic informationtheoretic performance metrics such as ergodic and outage
capacity, provide inaccurate benchmarks to the performance
of short-packet coding schemes, because of their asymptotic
nature [2], [3]. In particular, these performance metrics are
unable to capture the tension between the throughput gains in
the transmission over wireless fading channels attainable by
exploiting channel diversity and the throughput losses caused
by the insertion of pilot symbols, which are needed to estimate
the wireless fading channel (pilot overhead).
In this paper, we provide a characterization of the tradeoff
between latency, reliability, and throughput in the transmission
of short packets over point-to-point Rician block-fading channels. Our analysis explicitly accounts for the pilot overhead.
Relevant prior art: The fundamental quantity of interest
in short-packet communications is the maximum coding rate
R∗ (n, ), which is the largest rate achievable by any channel
code having blocklength n and packet error probability no
larger than . Note that the classic Shannon capacity can be
obtained from R∗ (n, ) by taking the limit n → ∞ and  → 0.
No closed-form expressions for R∗ (n, ) are available
for the channel models of interest in wireless communication systems. However, tight numerically computable bounds
on R∗ (n, ) have been recently obtained for a variety of
channels; such bounds rely on the nonasymptotic tools recently developed by Polyanskiy, Poor, and Verdú [4]. We next
summarize the available results, starting with the nonfading
To appear in Proceedings of the IEEE International Workshop on Signal
Processing Advances in Wireless Communications (SPAWC 2017).

complex AWGN channel. For this channel, tight upper (converse) and lower (achievability) bounds on R∗ (n, ) based
on cone packing were obtained by Shannon [5]. Polyanskiy,
Poor, and Verdú [4] showed recently that Shannon’s converse
bound is a special case of the so-called min-max converse [4,
Th. 27], [6], a general converse bound that involves a binary hypothesis test between the channel law and a suitably
chosen auxiliary distribution. Furthermore, they obtained an
alternative achievability bound—the κβ-bound [7, Th. 25]—
also based on binary hypothesis testing. This bound, although
less tight than Shannon’s achievability bound, is easier to
evaluate numerically and to analyze asymptotically. Indeed,
Shannon’s achievability bound relies on the transmission of
codewords that are uniformly distributed on the surface of
an n − 1-dimensional complex hypersphere in Cn (a.k.a.,
spherical or shell codes), which makes the induced output
distribution unwieldy. Min-max and κβ bounds solve this
problem by replacing this output distribution by a product
Gaussian distribution.
Analyzing the min-max converse and the κβ bound in the
asymptotic regime of large blocklength n, Polyanskiy, Poor,
and Verdú established the following asymptotic expansion for
R∗ (n, ) (see [4] and also the refinement in [8]):
√

R∗ (n, ) = C − n−1 V Q−1 () + O n−1 log n . (1)
Here, C = log(1+ρ), where ρ denotes the SNR, is the channel
capacity, V = ρ(2 + ρ)/(1 + ρ)2 is the so-called channel
dispersion, Q(·) is the Gaussian Q function, and O(n−1 log n)
comprises reminder terms of order n−1 log n.
We next move to the fading case and focus on the setup
where no a priori channel-state information (CSI) about the
fading channel is available at transmitter and receiver. The
assumption of no a priori CSI at the receiver is of particular
relevance for short-packet transmission because informationtheoretic analyses conducted under this assumption account
automatically for the “cost” of acquiring CSI [9]–[11]. Bounds
on R∗ for generic quasi-static multiple-antenna fading channels were reported in [12]. Using these bounds, the authors
showed that under mild condition on the fading distribution,
the channel dispersion (i.e., the term V in (1)) is zero. This
means that the asymptotic limit (in this case the outage capacity) is approached much faster in n than in the AWGN case.

This is because the main source of error in quasi-static fading
channels is the occurrence of “deep fades”; channel codes
cannot mitigate them. The achievability bound in [12] relies
on a modified version of the κβ bound, where the decoder
computes the angle between the received signal and each one
of the codewords. The converse bound relies on the min-max
converse. The analysis in [12] was later partly generalized
in [3] to fading channels offering time-frequency diversity.
Specifically, the authors of [3] focused on a multi-antenna
Rayleigh block-fading model where coding is performed across
a fixed number of coherence blocks. Their converse bound
relies again on the min-max converse, whereas the achievability bound relies on the so-called dependency-testing (DT)
bound [4, Th. 17]. The input distribution used in the DT bound
is the one induced by unitary space-time modulation (USTM),
where the matrices describing the signal transmitted within
each coherence block are (after a normalization) uniformly
distributed on the set of unitary matrices. This distribution,
which achieves capacity at high SNR [10], [13], coincides
with the one induced by shell codes in the single-input singleoutput (SISO) case. The auxiliary distribution used in the minmax converse is the one induced by USTM. Unfortunately,
this distribution is unwieldy. As a consequence, no asymptotic
expansions for R∗ similar to (1) are available.
Contributions: We provide upper and lower bounds on
R∗ for SISO Rician block-fading channels under the assumption of no a priori CSI. Similar to [3], our bounds rely on the
min-max converse and the DT bound, and on the transmission
of shell codes. The bounds recover the ones obtained in [3]
for the Rayleigh fading when the Rician factor κ is set to 0,
and agree with the normal approximation (1) when κ → ∞.
We also provide an extension of our achievability bound
to the case when pilot symbols are used to estimate the
channel at the decoder. Our analysis provides a nonasymptotic
perspective on the pilot-assisted transmission problem, which
has been addressed so far only in the asymptotic regime of
large packet size (see, e.g., [14]–[16]).
Notation: Uppercase letters such as X and X are used to
denote scalar random variables and vectors, respectively, and
the realizations are written in lowercase, e.g., x and x. The
identity matrix of size a × a is written as Ia . The distribution
of a circularly-symmetric complex Gaussian
 random variable
with variance σ 2 is denoted by CN 0, σ 2 . The superscript T
denotes transposition, H Hermitian transposition, and
the
Schur product. Furthermore, 0n and 1n stand for the allzero and all-one vectors of size n, respectively. Finally, log(·)
+
indicates the natural logarithm, [a] stands for max{0, a},
Γ(·) denotes the Gamma function, Iν (z) the modified Bessel
function of the first kind, k·k the l2 -norm, and E[·] the
expectation operator.
II. S YSTEM M ODEL
We consider a single-input single-output Rician blockfading channel. Specifically, the random non-line-of-sight
(NLOS) component is assumed to stay constant for nc successive channel uses (which form one coherence block) and

to change independently across coherence blocks. Coding is
performed across ` such blocks; we shall refer to ` as the
number of time-frequency diversity branches. The duration
of each codeword (packet size) is, hence, n = nc `. The
LOS component, which is assumed to be known at the
receiver, stays constant over the duration of the entire packet
(codeword). No a priori knowledge of the NLOS component
is available at the receiver, in accordance to the no-CSI
assumption. Mathematically, the channel input-output relation
can be expressed as
Yk = Hk xk + Wk ,

k = 1, . . . , `.

(2)

Here, xk ∈ C , Yk ∈ C are vectors containing the
transmitted and received
 symbols within block k, respectively,
2
and Hk p
∼ CN µH , σH
is the Rician-fading coefficient. Here,
2
κ/(1 + κ) and σH
= (1 + κ)−1 where κ is the
µH =
Rician factor. Finally, the vector Wk ∼ CN (0, Inc ) models
the AWGN process. The random variables {Hk } and {Wk },
which are mutually independent, are also independent over k.
We next define a channel code.
Definition 1: An (`, nc , M, , ρ)-code for the channel (2)
consists of
n `
• An encoder f : {1, . . . , M } → C c that maps the
message J ∈ {1, . . . , M } to a codeword in the set
{c1 , . . . , cM }. Since each codeword cm , m = 1 . . . , M ,
spans ` blocks, it is convenient to express it as a concatenation of ` subcodewords of dimension nc
nc

nc

cm = [cm,1 , . . . , cm,` ] .

(3)

We require that each subcodeword satisfies the averagepower constraint
kcm,k k2 = nc ρ,

•

k = 1, . . . , `.

(4)

Since the noise has unit variance, we can think of ρ as
the SNR.
A decoder g : Cnc ` → {1, . . . , M } satisfying an average
error probability constraint
M

1 X 
Pr g Y ` 6= J | J = j ≤ 
M j=1

(5)

where Y ` = [Y1 , . . . , Y` ] is the channel output induced
by the codeword x` = [x1 , . . . , x` ] = f (j).
For given ` and nc , , and ρ, the maximum coding rate R∗ ,
measured in information bits per channel use, is defined as
follows:


log2 (M )
∗
R , sup
: ∃(`, nc , M, , ρ) –code .
(6)
`nc
III. F INITE - BLOCKLENGTH BOUNDS ON R∗
A. An Auxiliary Lemma
We next present our achievability and converse bounds on
R∗ in (6). The achievability bound relies on the DT bound [4,
Th. 17] and on the transmission of independent shell codes
over each coherence block. This achievability bound does not

require the explicit estimation of the fading coefficients; rather,
it relies on a noncoherent transmission technique in which the
message is encoded in the direction of each vector xk in (2)–a
quantity that is not affected by the fading process. The case of
explicit channel estimation through pilot-assisted transmission
will be treated in Section III-D.
Our converse bound relies on the min-max converse [4,
Th. 27], with auxiliary distribution chosen as the one induced
on {Yk } by the transmission of independent shell codes over
each coherence block. We start by providing in the next lemma
the output distribution induced by a shell code of length nc .
Its proof is omitted for space constraints.
Lemma 1: Let X ∈ Cnc be uniformly distributed on the
√
(nc − 1)–dimensional complex
hypersphere of radius ρnc

and let H ∼ CN µ, σ 2 . Furthermore, let Y = HX + W
where W is defined as in (2). The probability density function
(pdf) of Y is given by
−2
Z
e−(ρnc +σ )z
Γ(nc ) −kyk2 − |µ|22
e σ
fY (y)= 2 nc e
nc −1
p
σ π
R+
kyk2 ρnc z
 q


 p
2
4
×I0 2 z |µ| /σ Inc −1 2 kyk2 ρnc z dz. (7)

The block-memoryless assumption implies that the information density [4, Eq. (4)] can be decomposed as
`
`
X
 X
fY
i u` ; y` =
i(uk ; yk ) =
log

| uk )
fY (yk )

(12)


√
2
nc ρuk uH
= CN µH nc ρuk , σH
k + I nc

(13)

k=1

k=1

| U (yk

where
fY

| U =uk

and fY is given in (7). One can also verify that for every
nc × nc unitary matrix V,

fY | U yk | VH uk = fY | U (Vyk | uk )
(14)
and
(15)

fY (Vyk ) = fY (yk ) .

This implies that i(uk ; Yk ) does not depend on uk when
Yk ∼ fY . Hence, we can set without loss of generality
T
uk = [1, 0, . . . , 0] , k = 1, . . . , `. One can finally show that,
when Yk ∼ fY | U =uk , the information density i(uk ; Yk ) has
the same distribution as the random variable Sk in (10). The
proof is concluded by invoking the DT bound [4, Th. 17].
C. An Upper Bound on R∗

B. A Noncoherent Lower Bound on R

as

∗

We are now ready to state our lower bound on R∗ .
Theorem 1 (DT lower bound): R∗ in (6) is lower-bounded



log2 (M )
R ≥ max
: ub (M ) ≤ 
nc `
∗

(8)

where
 "

#+ 

`
 X
M
−
1
 (9)
ub (M ) = E exp −
Sk − log


2


We next state our converse bound.
Theorem 2 (Min-max converse bound): R∗ in (6) is upperbounded as

" ( `
)
#+ 
X
1
λ − log Pr
R∗ ≤ inf
Sk ≤ λ −   (16)
λ≥0 `nc
k=1

where the {Sk } are defined in (10).
Proof: We use as auxiliary channel in the min-max
converse [4, Th. 27], the one for which y` has pdf
`
 Y
fY (yk )
qY ` y` =

k=1

with

(17)

k=1

2

|µH |
2
2
− kWk k2 − log σH
σH
nc ρ + 1
2
σH
−2
Z
e−(ρnc +σH )z
− log
q
nc −1
R+
2
f
kWk k ρnc z
 q

 q

2
4
2
f
× I0 2 z |µH | /σH Inc −1 2 kWk k ρnc z dz. (10)

Sk =

Here, Wk is defined as in (2) and
 √
 p

2n ρ+1
µH nc ρ
σH
c
f
Wk =
+
0nc −1
1nc −1

Wk .

(11)

Proof: The proof follow steps similar to the ones re√
ported in [3, App. A]. Specifically, we let Xk = nc ρUk
`
where {Uk }k=1 are independent and isotropically distributed
unitary vectors. It follows from Lemma 1 that the vectors
√
Yk = nc ρUk Hk + Wk , k ∈ {1, . . . , `}, are independent
and fY -distributed.

where fY is given in (7). For this choice, it follows from (10),
(14), and (15) that the Neyman-Pearson function β x` , qY `
defined in [4, Eq. (105)] is independent of x` . Hence, we can
use [4, Th. 28] to conclude that R∗ is upper-bounded as
R∗ ≤

1
1
log
.
nc `
β1− (x` , qY ` )

(18)

√
Without loss of generality, we shall set xk = [ nc ρ, 0 . . . , 0],
k = 1, . . . , `. It follows by the Neyman-Pearson lemma [17]
that



β1− x` , qY ` = Pr r x` ; Y ` ≥ γ , Y ` ∼ qY ` (19)
where γ is the solution to


Pr r x` ; Y ` ≤ γ = ,

Y ` ∼ fY ` | X `

(20)

and
`
`
X
 X
fY
r x` ; y ` =
r(xk ; yk ) =
log
k=1

k=1

| xk )
. (21)
fY (yk )

| X (yk

Finally, we obtain (16) by relaxing (18) using [4, Eq.
(106)] (which yields a generalized Verdú-Han converse bound,
cf. [18]) and by exploiting that when Yk ∼ fY | X=xk the
random variable r(xk ; Yk ) is distributed as Sk in (10).
Remark: The achievability and converse bounds reported
in Theorem 1 and 2 coincide with the bounds obtained in [3]
for the Rayleigh-fading case if one sets κ = 0 and replaces
the maximum probability of error constraint used in [3] with
the average probability of error constraint (5).
D. A Pilot-Assisted Lower Bound on R∗
We next present a lower bound on R∗ for the case in which
pilot symbols are transmitted to enable the decoder to perform
channel estimation. Specifically, we assume that within each
coherence block, np out of the available nc channel uses are
reserved for pilot symbols. The remaining nd = nc − np
channel uses are left for data symbols. We further assume that
all pilot symbols are transmitted at power ρ, and that each data
(d)
symbol vector xk ∈ Cnd , k = 1, . . . , ` satisfies the power
(d)
constraint kxk k2 = nd ρ so that (4) holds.
The receiver uses the np pilot symbols per coherence block
to perform a maximum likelihood estimate of the fading
coefficient within the coherence block. Specifically, given
ck ∼ CN hk , σe2
Hk = hk , the receiver obtains the estimate H
−1
2
where σe = (np ρ) . This implies that, given the channel
bk = b
estimates {H
hk }, k = 1, . . . , ` (which are available at
the receiver), we can express the input-output relation for the
data symbols in the following equivalent form:
Yk = Zk xk + Wk ,

k = 1, . . . , `.

Note that the expectation in (25) is computed also with
b k }; the random variables
respect to the channel estimates {H
b
{S̄k (HK )} are defined similarly as in (10) with the difference
2
ck ) and
that nc , µH and σH
in (10) are replaced by nd , µp (H
2
σp , respectively.
Remark: For the case np = 0, the pilot-based achievability bound in Theorem 3 coincides with the noncoherent bound
given in Theorem 1.
IV. N UMERICAL R ESULTS
A. Dependency of R∗ on the Rician Factor κ
In Fig. 1, we plot the bounds on R∗ given in Theorem 1
and 2 for different values of the Rician factor κ. We assume a
blocklength of n = 168 channel uses; furthermore,  = 10−3
and ρ = 6 dB. The bounds are depicted as a function of the
number of time-frequency diversity branches ` or, equivalently,
the size of each coherence block nc . We see from Fig. 1
that there exists an optimal number of diversity branches that
maximizes R∗ . When ` is too low, the performance bottleneck
is the limited diversity available. When ` is too high, the
limiting factor is instead the fast variation of the channel. We
note also that R∗ increases with κ and it becomes less sensitive
to ` as κ grows. This is expected since when κ → ∞ the
Rician channel becomes an AWGN channel. Indeed, we see
that the bounds obtained for the case κ = 103 are in good
agreement with the normal approximation (1).

(22)

84

nd
Here, all vectors
belong

 now to C and the random variable
2
b
Zk is CN µp (hk ), σp -distributed with

(n )

ubp (M ) =
 "



# + 
`
 X
b k ) − log M − 1
 . (25)
E exp −
S̄k (H


2
k=1

Size of coherence block nc
24
12
8
6
4
Normal Approximation

2

2
κ = 103
κ = 102

1.5
Bit/channel use

2 2
σe
σH
σ2 b
hk + σe2 µH
2
,
σ
=
.
(23)
µp (b
hk ) = H 2
p
2
2
σH + σe
σH + σe2
We see from (22) that we can account for the availability
bk = b
of the noisy CSI {H
hk } simply by transforming the
Rician fading channel (2) into the equivalent Rician fading
channel (22), whose LOS component is a random variable
b k }. A lower bound
that depends on the channel estimates {H
on R∗ for this setup can be readily obtained by assuming that
each nd dimensional data vector is generated independently
from a shell code, by applying Theorem 1 to each realization
b k }, and then by averaging over {H
b k }. The resulting
of {H
bound is given in Theorem 3 below.
Theorem 3 (Pilot-assisted DT lower bound): Assume that
np pilots per coherence interval are used to estimate the fading
coefficients. Then R∗ in (6) is lower-bounded as


log2 (M ) (np )
R∗ ≥ max
: ub (M ) ≤ 
(24)
nc `
where

42

κ=1
1
κ = 10
0.5
κ=0
0

2

4
7
14
21 28
42
Number of time-frequency diversity branches ` (log scale)

84

Fig. 1.
Achievability (red) and converse (blue) bounds on R∗ from
Theorem 1 and 2, respectively. Here, κ = {0, 1, 10, 100, 1000}, n = 168,
 = 10−3 , and ρ = 6 dB.

B. Pilot-Assisted Transmission
In Fig. 2, we compare the pilot-assisted-transmission achievability bound given in Theorem 3 with np ∈ {0, 1, 2, 4, 6, 8},
with the converse bound given in Theorem 2. We assume
κ = 0. The other parameters are set as in Fig. 1. We can see
from Fig. 2 that using one pilot yields similar performance
as using the noncoherent shell-code scheme in Theorem 1.

Transmitting more than one pilot turns out to be detrimental
when the size of the coherence block decreases. Indeed, the
improvement in the channel estimate is outweighed by the rate
loss caused by pilot insertion. As shown in Fig. 3 for the case
κ = 10, the negative effect of pilot overhead becomes more
significant when κ is large.
84

42

Size of coherence block nc
24
12
8
6

4

2

Bit/channel use

0.8

np = 0

0.6
np = 4
0.4

R EFERENCES

np = 1

np = 6

0.2

np = 2

np = 8
0

2

4
7
14
21 28
42
Number of time-frequency diversity branches ` (log scale)

84

Fig. 2. Comparison between the converse bound (blue) given in Theorem 2
and the achievability bound with pilot-assisted transmission given in Theorem 3 for the case when np = {0, 1, 2, 4, 6, 8} pilot symbols are inserted
within each coherence block. Here, κ = 0, n = 168,  = 10−3 and
ρ = 6 dB.

84

42

Size of coherence block nc
24
12
8
6

4

2

1.5

Bit/channel use

np = 0
np = 1
1

np = 4
np = 2
np = 6

0.5

np = 8
0

2

the case when no a priori CSI is available. Our bounds
allow one to estimate the optimal number of time-frequency
branches over which one should code across. This value trades
optimally the rate gains resulting from time-frequency diversity against the rate loss resulting from fast channel variations.
We also obtained an achievability bound for the case of pilotassisted transmission, which allow one to optimize the number
of pilot symbols to be transmitted within each coherence
block. Our results indicate that pilot-assisted transmission
results in a significant rate loss when the coherence block
is short and when the Rician factor κ is large. In these
situations, noncoherent transmission schemes are preferable.
A comparison between our bounds and the performance of
actual coding schemes, along the lines of what we recently
reported in [19], is left for future work.

4
7
14
21 28
42
Number of time-frequency diversity branches ` (log scale)

84

Fig. 3. Comparison between the converse bound (blue) given in Theorem 2
and the achievability bound with pilot-assisted transmission given in Theorem 3 for the case when np = {0, 1, 2, 4, 6, 8} pilot symbols are inserted
within each coherence block. Here, κ = 10, n = 168,  = 10−3 and
ρ = 6 dB.

C. Conclusion
We presented finite-blocklength bounds on the maximum
coding rate achievable over Rician block-fading channels for

[1] METIS project, Deliverable D1.1, “Scenarios, requirements and KPIs
for 5G mobile and wireless system,” Tech. Rep., Apr. 2013.
[2] G. Durisi, T. Koch, and P. Popovski, “Towards massive, ultra-reliable,
and low-latency wireless communication with short packets,” Proc.
IEEE, vol. 104, no. 9, pp. 1711–1726, Sep. 2016.
[3] G. Durisi, T. Koch, J. Östman, Y. Polyanskiy, and W. Yang, “Shortpacket communications over multiple-antenna Rayleigh-fading channels,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 64, no. 2, pp. 618–629, Feb. 2016.
[4] Y. Polyanskiy, H. V. Poor, and S. Verdú, “Channel coding rate in the
finite blocklength regime,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 56, no. 5, pp.
2307–2359, May 2010.
[5] C. E. Shannon, “Probability of error for optimal codes in a Gaussian
channel,” Bell Syst. Tech. J., vol. 38, pp. 611–656, 1959.
[6] Y. Polyanskiy, “Saddle point in the minimax converse for channel
coding,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 59, no. 7, pp. 2576–2595, Jul.
2013.
[7] ——, “Channel coding: non-asymptotic fundamental limits,” Ph.D.
dissertation, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, Nov. 2010.
[8] V. Y. F. Tan and M. Tomamichel, “The third-order term in the normal
approximation for the AWGN channel,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 61,
no. 5, pp. 2430–2438, May 2015.
[9] A. Lapidoth, “On the asymptotic capacity of stationary Gaussian fading
channels,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 437–446, Feb.
2005.
[10] W. Yang, G. Durisi, and E. Riegler, “On the capacity of large-MIMO
block-fading channels,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 31, no. 2, pp.
117–132, Feb. 2013.
[11] R. Devassy, G. Durisi, J. Östman, W. Yang, T. Eftimov, and Z. Utkovski,
“Finite-SNR bounds on the sum-rate capacity of Rayleigh block-fading
multiple-access channels with no a priori CSI,” IEEE Trans. Commun.,
vol. 63, no. 10, pp. 3621–3632, Oct. 2015.
[12] W. Yang, G. Durisi, T. Koch, and Y. Polyanskiy, “Quasi-static multipleantenna fading channels at finite blocklength,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory,
vol. 60, no. 7, pp. 4232–4265, Jul. 2014.
[13] L. Zheng and D. N. C. Tse, “Communication on the Grassmann
manifold: A geometric approach to the noncoherent multiple-antenna
channel,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 359–383, Feb.
2002.
[14] B. Hassibi and B. M. Hochwald, “How much training is needed in
multiple-antenna wireless links?” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 49, no. 4,
pp. 951–963, Apr. 2003.
[15] L. Tong, B. M. Sadler, and M. Dong, “Pilot-assisted wireless transmissions,” IEEE Signal Process. Mag., vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 12–25, Nov. 2004.
[16] N. Jindal, A. Lozano, and T. Marzetta, “What is the value of joint
processing of pilots and data in block-fading channels?” in Proc. IEEE
Int. Symp. Inf. Theory (ISIT), Seoul, Korea, Jun. 2009, pp. 2189–2193.
[17] J. Neyman and E. S. Pearson, “On the problem of the most efficient
tests of statistical hypotheses,” Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond., Jan. 1933.
[18] S. Verdú and T. S. Han, “A general formula for channel capacity,” IEEE
Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 40, no. 4, pp. 1147–1157, Jul. 1994.

[19] J. Östman, G. Durisi, E. G. Ström, J. Li, H. Sahlin, and G. Liva, “Lowlatency ultra-reliable 5G communications: finite block-length bounds
and coding schemes,” in Int. ITG Conf. Sys. Commun. Coding (SCC),
Hamburg, Germany, Feb. 2017.

