1

Partial-Duplex Amplify-and-Forward Relaying:
Spectral Efficiency Analysis under
Self-Interference
arXiv:1708.06268v1 [] 21 Aug 2017

Roberto López-Valcarce, Member, IEEE, Carlos Mosquera, Senior Member, IEEE

Abstract
We propose a novel mode of operation for Amplify-and-Forward relays in which the spectra of
the relay input and output signals partially overlap. This partial-duplex relaying mode encompasses
half-duplex and full-duplex as particular cases. By viewing the partial-duplex relay as a bandwidthpreserving Linear Periodic Time-Varying system, an analysis of the spectral efficiency in the presence
of self-interference is developed. In contrast with previous works, self-interference is regarded as a
useful information-bearing component rather than simply assimilated to noise. This approach reveals
that previous results regarding the impact of self-interference on (full-duplex) relay performance are
overly pessimistic. Based on a frequency-domain interpretation of the effect of self-interference, a
number of suboptimal decoding architectures at the destination node are also discussed. It is found
that the partial-duplex relaying mode may provide an attractive tradeoff between spectral efficiency and
receiver complexity.

I. I NTRODUCTION
Relay-assisted communication is a widespread technique to extend the coverage and improve
the reliability of wireless networks [2], [3]. Depending on how the received signal is processed
Carlos Mosquera and Roberto López-Valcarce are with the Signal Theory and Communications Department, University of
Vigo, Galicia, Spain. (e-mail: {mosquera, valcarce}@gts.uvigo.es). This work was partially funded by the Agencia Estatal de
Investigación (Spain) and the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) through the projects MYRADA (grant TEC201675103-C2-2-R), WINTER (grant TEC2016-76409-C2-2-R) and COMONSENS (grant TEC2015-69648-REDC). Also funded by
the Xunta de Galicia (Agrupación Estratéxica Consolidada de Galicia accreditation 2016-2019; Red Temática REdTEIC 20172018) and the European Union (European Regional Development Fund - ERDF). Some preliminary results of this paper were
presented in IEEE SPAWC 2016 [1].

2

by the relay node, a number of relaying schemes can be identified. Among these, Amplify-andForward (A&F), in which the relay just amplifies the received signal and then forwards it to
the destination, emerges as a highly flexible technology, which is transparent to the particular
modulation type of the retransmitted signal and has low implementation complexity [4], [5]. Traditionally, A&F relays operate in Half-Duplex (HD) mode, meaning that they transmit and receive
either at different times, or over sufficiently separated frequency bands. This is because of the
widespread belief that simultaneously transmitting and receiving on the same band would result
in strong self-interference many tens of dB above the signal of interest, thus overwhelming the
receiver. This Full-Duplex (FD) mode, however, is of great interest for next-generation wireless
systems due to its potential to improve spectral efficiency by avoiding the use of additional time or
frequency resources [6]–[9]. Motivated by this, significant effort has been dedicated to the study
of self-interference cancellation technologies [10]–[13], with results suggesting that operation in
FD mode might be feasible. In fact, FD A&F relaying is already found in certain practical settings
such as on-frequency repeaters for broadcasting applications [14]–[16]. Nevertheless, given the
high levels of self-interference present in practice, some amount of residual self-interference is
to be expected in most scenarios. For example, in a practical deployment of an FD A&F relay,
the designer may choose not to incorporate active cancellation methods in order to keep down
complexity and cost, as long as sufficient mitigation of self-interference is provided by passive
means (e.g. antenna placement and radiation pattern optimization) to avoid saturation of the
receive analog frontend [17]. Even when active suppression is applied, perfect cancellation is
generally not possible [8], [9]. Thus, analyzing the impact of self-interference in the performance
of FD systems in general, and in FD A&F relay networks in particular, has significant interest.
A number of such analyses, under different assumptions, can be found in the literature. In
many of these, the residual self-interference is modeled as (usually Gaussian) noise, statistically
independent of the retransmitted signal, and whose power depends in some way on the power
of the signal transmitted by the relay [18]–[22]. The Gaussian assumption is usually justified
by invoking the Central Limit Theorem, given the variety of sources of imperfection in the
cancellation process; whereas the independence assumption may be motivated by assuming a
sufficiently large processing delay which effectively decorrelates the relay transmit signal with
the simultaneously received signal [23]. In fact, this relay processing delay lies at the core of
the problem because, as shown in [24], [25], when the processing delay is negligible (in the
sense that the delay-bandwidth product is much smaller than one) self-interference ceases to be

3

harmful as its effect can be assimilated to a mere scaling.
All the aforementioned works hinge on the assumption that self-interference can be regarded
as noise. This is rather pessimistic, because the self-interference waveform contains useful
information about the signal transmitted by the source. To the best of our knowledge, the impact
on spectral efficiency for an FD A&F relay, assuming that the receiver at the destination is able
to exploit self-interference in the decoding process, has not been studied yet. Our analysis shows
that such approach results in a much more graceful performance degradation compared to the
standard procedure of treating self-interference as noise.
Specifically, in this work we study the performance of a single-input single-output (SISO) A&F
relay under a novel operation mode termed Partial Duplexing (PD), which encompasses HD and
FD as particular cases. In PD mode, the relay transmits and receives simultaneously, placing the
transmitted signal in a frequency band that partially overlaps with that of the incoming signal.
In this way, HD and FD are obtained as particular instances of PD with zero and 100% overlap,
respectively. We evaluate the achievable rate as a function of the spectrum overlap factor, in the
presence of self-interference, and for a variety of decoding strategies at the destination. We must
note that PD operation is fundamentally different from previous hybrid HD/FD approaches [23],
[26] that opportunistically switch between HD and FD modes depending on the quality of the
different links in the relay network; additionally, channel state information (CSI) is not needed
at the relay in PD mode, so that relay operation remains simple. The burden of the decoding
process is placed at the destination node and increases with the spectrum overlap factor: therefore,
judicious selection of this factor allows to trade off complexity and performance.
Since our study focuses on the A&F relay itself, the source-to-relay, relay-to-destination, and
self-interference channels are assumed frequency flat, with uniform power allocation over frequency at the source, and non-negligible processing delay at the relay. The source-to-destination
link is assumed absent, and additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN) will be present only at
the destination, as we assume that the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) at the input of the relay is
sufficiently large as a result of careful relay deployment. A key technical step in the development
will be the consideration of the PD relay as a special type of Linear Periodically Time-Varying
(LPTV) system [27]–[29], for which the bandwidth of the input signal is preserved at its output.
The paper is organized as follows. After introducing the PD relay operation in Sec. II, its
spectral efficiency is analyzed in Secs. III and IV using a time-domain approach and a frequencydomain approximation, respectively. A number of suboptimal receiver architectures with different

4

Filter

Fig. 1: Baseband-equivalent description of the Partial Duplex A&F relay. In practice, the receive
and transmit front-ends incorporate a down-conversion and up-conversion stage, respectively.
The difference between the corresponding oscillator frequencies is given by f0 .

levels of complexity are discussed in Sec. V. In Sec. VI a comparison between HD and FD modes
is provided. Numerical results are given in Sec. VII, and conclusions are drawn in Sec. VIII.

II. PARTIAL D UPLEX R ELAY
A. System model
Fig. 1 shows the operation of the proposed PD A&F relay. The source transmits a signal
x(t), with bandwidth Bu and power P̄x . Upon reaching the relay input, this signal is filtered,
frequency-shifted by f0 = B − Bu , and amplified. As long as the passband of the output signal
overlaps that of the input, i.e., f0 < Bu , self-interference will be present due to coupling from
the relay output to its input. The power gain of the self-interference path is denoted by α. The
purpose of the relay filter is to eliminate as much self-interference as possible; we assume an
ideal frequency response given by

 e−j(2πf t0 +θ0 ) , 0 ≤ f ≤ B
u
Lu (f ) =

0,
otherwise,

(1)

where θ0 is a constant phase shift and t0 is the group delay. In practice, the time delay of the
self-interference path is generally much smaller than the group delay of the analog filters in the
relay frontends (i.e., t0 ), and thus it is neglected.
After filtering, the signal is frequency-shifted by multiplication with ej(2πf0 t+θOL ) ; since any
constant phase offset θOL in the local oscillator can be absorbed in the parameter θ0 in (1), we

5

will assume without loss of generality that θOL = 0. Finally, the signal is amplified with power
gain g to yield output power P̄y ; the retransmitted signal is denoted by y(t). At the destination,
the output signal y(t) is corrupted by additive white Gaussian noise. It is assumed that the
source-to-relay and relay-to-destination links are frequency flat, and that the direct link from the
source to the destination is absent.
Given the total system bandwidth B, the design parameter is the bandwidth allocated to the
input and output signals, Bu = B − f0 . This can be expressed in terms of the ratio
ρ,

 
Bu
∈ 12 , 1 .
B

(2)

Under the configuration in Fig. 1, the HD mode corresponds to Bu = B/2 (i.e., f0 = B/2, or
ρ = 21 ), with non-overlapping input and ouptut spectra; whereas the FD mode is recovered for
Bu = B (i.e., f0 = 0, or ρ = 1), with input and output passbands completely overlapping. For
1
2

< ρ < 1, the operational mode is termed Partial Duplex (PD).
The operation of the PD relay can be written in the frequency domain as
Y (f ) =

√

gX(f − f0 )Lu (f − f0 ) +

√
αgY (f − f0 )Lu (f − f0 ),

(3)

a recursive relation which can be unfolded to yield
Y (f ) =

√

gX(f − f0 )Lu (f − f0 )+
self-interference

z
}|
{
K
X
√
√
( αg)k X(f − (k + 1)f0 )Πk+1
g
m=1 Lu (f − mf0 ) . (4)
k=1

The number of terms contributing to the self-intererence sum is finite except for Bu = B (FD
case), and it is given by





Bu
ρ
K,
−1 =
− 1,
B − Bu
1−ρ

(5)

where d·e denotes the ceil function. This is readily obtained from the fact that the filter Lu (f )
has a bandwidth of Bu , whereas each time the self-interference signal loops through the coupling
path it undergoes a frequency shift of f0 = B − Bu (see Fig. 1).
We assume that the relay uses automatic gain control (AGC), as customary in practical
repeaters. Thus, the power gain g is not set beforehand, but rather it is adjusted to deliver
the nominal output power P̄y even in the presence of coupling from output to input. In the
particular case without self-interference (α = 0), the relay gain becomes simply g = P̄y /P̄x .

6

As performance metric we consider the achievable rate from the source to the final destination
through the PD relay, in the absence of a direct link. We will assume that the relative contributions
of all noise sources are much less significant than that of the final receiver noise, since proper
operation of repeaters usually require a good source-relay link. Assuming white noise at the
destination with power spectral density N0 , we define the reference signal-to-noise ratio and the
loop gain respectively as
snr ,
Note that

1
LG

P̄y
,
N0 B

LG ,

αP̄y
.
P̄x

(6)

can be interpreted as the signal-to-self-interference ratio at the relay input.

It is illustrative to analyze the power budget of the AGC-equipped relay in the FD case
(Bu = B, or ρ = 1), for which the input-output relation (4) becomes, after letting f0 → 0 and
K → ∞,

√ −j(2πf t0 +θ0 )
ge
Y (f ) =
X(f ) = H(f )X(f ),
√
1 − αge−j(2πf t0 +θ0 )

(7)

showing that the FD relay is linear time-invariant (LTI) with transfer function H(f ). From (4),
√
if we regard the term ge−j(2πf t0 +θ0 ) X(f ) as the useful signal component (with power g P̄x ) at
the relay output, then the spectrum of the remaining terms (self-interference) is given by


√
√
Y (f ) − ge−j(2πf t0 +θ0 ) X(f ) = H(f ) − ge−j(2πf t0 +θ0 ) X(f )
=

√
αge−j(2πf t0 +θ0 ) H(f )X(f ),

(8)
(9)

from which the power of the self-interference is seen to be given by αg P̄y . The signal-to-selfinterference ratio at the relay output is therefore

g P̄x
αg P̄y

=

1
,
LG

i.e., the same as that at its input. If

self-interference is assimilated to noise, then the performance of the FD relay can be expected
to degrade fast as the loop gain increases, leading to overly pessimistic results.
B. PD relay as an LPTV system
For the subsequent analysis, it is important to note that for B/2 < Bu < B (i.e.,

1
2

< ρ < 1)

the PD relay is not LTI, but rather Linear Periodically Time-Varying (LPTV). The input-output
frequency relationship of a generic LPTV system with period T0 [29], [30] can be written as


∞
X
k
Y (f ) =
Hk (f )X f −
(10)
T
0
k=−∞
for some transfer functions {Hk (f )}. By comparing (10) with (4), and defining
Lk (f ) ,

k
Y
m=1

Lu (f − mf0 ),

k = 1, . . . , K + 1,

(11)

7

Source

PD Relay

Destination

Fig. 2: The source communicates with the destination through a SISO relay with output power
P̄y . Part of the retransmitted signal loops back to the relay input, resulting in self-interference.

it is clear that the PD relay is LPTV with period T0 = 1/f0 and

 √g √αg k−1 L (f ), k = 1, . . . , K + 1,
k
Hk (f ) =

0,
otherwise.

(12)

Note that the support of Hk (f ) is within the interval [B − Bu , B]. Thus, assuming an ideal filter
Lu (f ), the PD relay belongs to the particular class of bandwidth-preserving LPTV systems, since
the size of the spectral region with non-zero frequency content is the same for both input and
output signals, namely Bu . With non-ideal filters some out-of-band content will appear, resulting
in a spectral efficiency loss.
III. S PECTRAL E FFICIENCY OF PD R ELAY: T IME -D OMAIN A PPROACH
Somewhat surprisingly, the information-theoretic analysis of LPTV channels has not been
directly addressed in the literature until recently. The following derivation follows the steps
of the time-domain approach from [31], which dealt with Power Line Communication (PLC)
channels, and was based on the assimilation of the SISO LPTV channel to a multiple-input
multiple-output (MIMO) LTI system. This approach can be traced back to [32], which obtained
the capacity of the multivariate Gaussian channel with memory by formulating the input-output
relationship as a memoryless MIMO channel (although the term ”MIMO” was not used at that
time).
The overall system including the source, PD relay, and destination is shown in Fig. 2. The
received signal at the destination can be written as
Z ∞
√
p(t, τ )x(t − τ )dτ + w(t),
r(t) = y(t) + w(t) = g
−∞

(13)

8

which is the time-domain counterpart of (4), with the addition of the noise w(t). An ideal filter
with passband [0, B] is assumed at the receiver, so that the psd of the noise w(t) is N0 for
R∞
0 ≤ f ≤ B and zero otherwise. In terms of the impulse responses lk (t) = −∞ Lk (f )ej2πf t df ,
k = 1, . . . , K + 1, the response p(t, τ ) is given by
p(t, τ ) =

K+1
X

√
( gα)k−1 lk (τ )ej2πkf0 (t−τ ) .

(14)

k=1

Note that the input-output relation (13) does correspond to an LPTV system, since p(t, τ ) =
p(t + T0 , τ ) with T0 = 1/f0 . In discrete-time form, if the sampling rate is 1/T , we have
y(nT ) =

∞
√ X
g
p(nT, mT )x((n − m)T )

(15)

m=−∞

with the time-varying discrete-time impulse response
p(nT, mT ) =

K+1
X

√
( gα)k−1 lk (mT )ej2πkf0 T (n−m) .

(16)

k=1

Note that, upon choosing T ≤ 1/B, the Nyquist criterion is satisfied for all bandwidths under
consideration in Fig. 1. In addition, the sampled system (15) will be LPTV with period r ∈ N
l
m
B
provided that T = T0 /r. These two conditions will be simultaneously satisfied if r ≥ B−Bu =
B
K + 2. In this section we will assume that B−B
= Nch is an integer (or equivalently, that
u


ρ = NNchch−1 for some integer Nch , or Bu = 1 − N1ch B ), and choose r = Nch so that T =

T0 /Nch = 1/B. In this way, it can be readily checked that the noise samples w(nT ), with
variance BN0 , will be uncorrelated, which simplifies the analysis. In Sec. IV a frequency-domain
approximation will be presented, which allows to extend the results to the case in which

B
B−Bu

is not an integer.
Thus, with f0 T = 1/Nch , (16) becomes
p(nT, mT ) =

K+1
X

√
−j 2π km j 2π kn
( gα)k−1 lk (mT )e Nch e Nch

k=1

, pn (mT ),

n = 0, 1, . . . , Nch − 1.

(17)

Let us define the delay in samples as ` , t0 /T . For the ideal filter response (1), it can be checked
that the term lk (mT )e
lk (mT )e

−j N2π km
ch

−j N2π km

in (16) reads as







k
k
k
−jkθ0 jπ 1− Nch (m−k`)
=e
e
1−
sinc 1 −
(m − k`) .
Nch
Nch
ch

(18)

9

If the delay-bandwidth product of the relay filter is large, i.e., if Bt0 = `  1, then (18) is
approximately zero outside the interval 0 ≤ m ≤ 2k`, and it follows that pn (mT ) ≈ 0 outside
the interval 0 ≤ m ≤ `p , with `p , 2(K + 1)`, for all n = 0, 1, . . . , Nch − 1.
To find the capacity of the PD relay channel, the original scalar model is first transformed
into a vector model. Let M be the size of the input block, defined as
h
iT
x[n] , x(nM T ) x((nM + 1)T ) · · · x((nM + M − 1)T )
.

(19)

Similarly, we define the output block and noise vector respectively as
h
iT
r[n] ,
, (20)
r((nM + `p )T ) r((nM + `p + 1)T ) · · · r((nM + M − 1)T )
h
iT
w[n] ,
, (21)
w((nM + `p )T ) w((nM + `p + 1)T ) · · · w((nM + M − 1)T )
both having size M − `p . Then, the input-output relationship can be expressed in matrix form as
r[n] =

√
gPx[n] + w[n],

(22)

with the (M − `p ) × M channel matrix P given by

...
0
p`p (0)
p (` T ) . . .
 `p p

..
..
..
..
P,
.
.
.
.

0
. . . pM −1 (`p T ) . . . pM −1 (0)




,


(23)

where it is implicitly assumed that pn (mT ) is Nch -periodic in n. The block size M is chosen as
an integer multiple of Nch , so that the input block comprises an integer number of periods. Note
that the size of the output block, M −`p , is smaller than that of the input block, M . Nevertheless,
the impact on the capacity derivation decreases as the block size M grows, and the true capacity
C can be obtained as the asymptotic value limM →∞ CM [31], with CM denoting the achievable
rate of the truncated MIMO model with channel matrix P in (23) for a given input covariance


Cx , E x[n]xH [n] . Since E{w[n]wH [n]} = BN0 I,


1
g
H
CM =
log2 det I +
PCx P
[bps].
(24)
(M − `p )T
BN0
Therefore, with BT = 1, the corresponding spectral efficiency is


C
1
g
H
= lim
log2 det I +
PCx P
B M →∞ M − `p
BN0

[bps/Hz].

(25)

Since we are considering frequency-nonselective channels, the source is assumed to transmit
with flat power spectral density in the occupied bandwidth. Then [Cx ]k,l = Cx ((k − l)T ), with
Cx (τ ) , P̄x sinc (Bu τ ) ej2π

Bu
τ
2

,

(26)

10

out-of-band
content

Fig. 3: A non-ideal relay filter results in some residual out-of-band content.


which for Bu = 1 −

1
Nch



B and T =

1
B

yields

  

1
jπ 1− N1 m
ch
Cx (mT ) = P̄x sinc 1 −
m e
.
Nch

(27)

In order to set the relay gain g, note that the relay output power must equal P̄y , i.e.,
g·

tr{PCx PH }
= P̄y .
M − `p

(28)

The entries of P are functions of g, and thus (28) is nonlinear in g and has to be solved by
numerical means. An alternative approach to obtain g will be presented in Sec. IV.
As a final remark, we mention that, with a non-ideal relay filter Lu (f ), some out-of-band
content will be present at the relay output as shown in Fig. 3. The bulk of the above analysis
should still hold, although the spectral efficiency in (25) will suffer a slight degradation due to
the additional bandwidth taken by the residual content.
IV. S PECTRAL E FFICIENCY OF PD R ELAY: F REQUENCY-D OMAIN A PPROACH
We present now an alternative approach to computing the capacity of the PD relay, based
on the frequency-domain input-output relation (10)-(12), and following standard arguments for
frequency-selective LTI channels [33]. The available bandwidth B is sliced into a total of L
subcarriers, and the source transmits by using only N of them, with N < L, while leaving the
remaining P , L − N subcarriers unused, such that
is ∆f =

B
L

=

Bu
,
N

N
L

=

Bu
B

= ρ. Thus, the intercarrier spacing

and the frequency offset in Fig. 1 equals f0 = B − Bu = P ∆f . Transmission

is block-based, with blocks of length L to which a cyclic prefix of length `p is added. The
overhead due to the cyclic prefix can be made arbitrarily small as L → ∞.
For LTI channels, this multicarrier approach results in the familiar decoupling of the channel
into a set of L independent parallel subchannels with no intercarrier interference (ICI), and with

11

the gain of each subchannel given by the transfer function of the channel at the corresponding
frequency bin. However, for the PD relay with self-interference, ICI will be present due to the
fact that the received signal spectrum Y (f ) is the superposition of a number of scaled and
frequency-shifted replicas Hk (f )X(f − kf0 ) of the original spectrum X(f ) as seen in (10).
Again, let us assume a sampling rate T = 1/B, so that the noise samples at the output of the
receive filter (with passband [0, B]) are uncorrelated with power BN0 . If we let R[q], X[q] and
W[q] respectively denote the L×1 vectors given by the Discrete Fourier Transform (DFT) of the
qth output, input and noise blocks (of length L, or duration LT seconds), then the input-output
relation from X[q] to R[q] can be well approximated, for sufficiently large L, as
R[q] = HX[q] + W[q],

(29)

where H ∈ CL×L comprises the ICI coefficients:

 H (n∆f ), if m = n − kP with 1 ≤ k ≤ K + 1,
k
[H]n,m =
(30)

0,
otherwise,
 
− 1. In view of (12),
with 0 ≤ n, m ≤ L − 1, and K given by (5) or, equivalently, K = N
P
H is seen to be lower triangular; moreover, its first P rows and last P columns are zero. Since
the source does not use the last P subcarriers, i.e., the last P entries of X[q] are zero, it follows
that HX[q] can be written as:

HX[q] =  √

0P ×P

0P ×N

gTN DN 0N ×P




X̄[q]
0P





=

0P
Ȳ[q]


,

(31)

where X̄[q] and Ȳ[q] are N × 1, TN ∈ CN ×N is lower triangular, and DN ∈ CN ×N is diagonal.
The entries of these matrices are as follows: letting φ0 , 2π∆f t0 , one has
[DN ]n,n = e−j(nφ0 +θ0 ) ,

0 ≤ n ≤ N − 1.

(32)

The entries [TN ]n,m , 0 ≤ n, m ≤ N − 1, are zero except when m = n − kP for some k ∈
{0, 1, . . . , K}, in which case one has
k(k−1)
√
[TN ]n,n−kP = ( αg)k e−jkθ0 e−j (nk−P 2 )φ0 .

(33)

Note in particular that DN DH
N = IN and TN has ones on its diagonal.
From (29) and (31) it follows that
R̄[q] =

√

gTN DN X̄[q] + W̄[q],

(34)

12

where R̄[q] and W̄[q] comprise the last N entries of R[q] and W[q], respectively. The noise
vector W̄[q] is zero-mean Gaussian with covariance matrix BN0 IN , whereas that of X̄[q] is
L
P̄ I
N x N

for constant power allocation across f ∈ [0, Bu ] at the source1 .

The sum rate of all carriers is bounded by the relay channel capacity, which from (34) gives
the following achievable spectral efficiency:


1
L P̄x
C
H
=
log2 det IN + g
TN TN
B
L
N BN0

1
=
log2 det IN + µTN TH
N ,
L

(35)
(36)

where we have introduced
µ,g

L P̄x
snr
= αg
,
N BN0
ρLG

(37)

which is a scaled version of the reference SNR (6), and with LG the loop gain, defined in (6).
The gain g can be obtained from the expression of the PD relay output power, given by
1
tr E{HX[q]XH [q]HH }
L
g
=
tr E{TN X̄[q]X̄H [q]TH
N}
L
g
=
P̄x tr{TN TH
N }.
N

P̄y =

Hence, g =

P̄y
N
.
P̄x tr{TN TH
N}

From the expression of TN , and using

P
N

(38)
=

1−ρ
,
ρ

one readily finds that

K

1
1X
tr{TN TH
}
=
(ρ − k(1 − ρ))(αg)k .
N
N
ρ k=0

(39)

From (38) and (39), it follows that αg is a solution of the polynomial equation
K+1
X

(1 − k(1 − ρ))(αg)k = ρLG.

(40)

k=1

The following lemma establishes the uniqueness of the solution; see Appendix A for the proof.
Lemma 1: Assume α > 0. Then the polynomial equation (40) has a single solution satisfying
αg > 0. In particular, if ρ = 1 (FD case), the solution is αg =
interference), then g =

LG
.
1+LG

If α = 0 (no self-

P̄y
.
P̄x

Now, in order to further develop (36), let
QN , T N T H
N
1

This follows from the fact that the source transmit power is P̄x =

of X[q] are zero.

−1

1
L

,

(41)

tr E{X[q]XH [q]} and that the last P = L − N entries

13

with characteristic polynomial q(λ) , det(QN − λIN ). Then, the determinant in (36) can be
written as
 det (QN + µIN )
q(−µ)
det IN + µTN TH
=
.
N =
det(QN )
q(0)

(42)

The usefulness of (42) resides in the fact that QN has certain structure that we will exploit. To
this end, the following lemma will be useful.
√
−1
Lemma 2: The inverse of TN is TN
= IN − αge−jθ0 SN , where SN is defined entrywise as
[SN ]n,n−P = e−jnφ0 ,

n = P, P + 1, . . . , N − 1;

[SN ]n,m = 0,

otherwise.

(43)

√
Lemma 2 is proved by using (33) and (43) to directly verify that TN (IN − αge−jθ0 SN ) = IN .
Using this result, one finds that
QN = (IN −
= IN −

√

αgejθ0 SH
N )(IN −

√

αge−jθ0 SN )

(44)

√
√
αgejθ0 SH
αge−jθ0 SN + αgSH
N −
N SN .

(45)

Note now that the matrix SH
N SN is diagonal, with the first N − P diagonal elements equal to
one and the last P equal to zero. Therefore, the entries of QN are zero except along the main
diagonal and the P -th super- and sub-diagonals:

 1 + αg, 0 ≤ n ≤ N − P − 1,
[QN ]n,n =

1,
N − P ≤ n ≤ N − 1,
√
[QN ]n,n−P = − αge−j(θ0 +nφ0 ) ,
[QN ]n,m = 0,

[QN ]n−P,n = [QN ]∗n,n−P ,

(46)
P ≤ n ≤ N − 1,

otherwise.

(47)
(48)

The following result holds now; the proof hinges on the structure of QN as exposed by (46)-(48)
and can be found in Appendix B.
Theorem 1: Let q0 (λ) = 1, q1 (λ) = 1 − λ and
qk (λ) = (1 + αg − λ)qk−1 (λ) − αg qk−2 (λ),
Then, with K =

N 
P

k ≥ 2.

(49)

− 1, the characteristic polynomial q(λ) = det(QN − λIN ) is given by
q(λ) = [qK (λ)](K+1)P −N [qK+1 (λ)]N −KP .

(50)

Note in particular that, from Theorem 1, the coefficients of the polynomial q(λ) are functions
of αg alone, and they do not depend on θ0 or φ0 . Additionally, it follows by induction on k that

14

qk (0) = 1 for all k, so that q(0) = 1. Therefore, from (35)-(42), the following expression for
the spectral efficiency follows:
C
1
(K + 1)P − N
N − KP
= log2 q(−µ) =
log2 qK (−µ) +
log2 qK+1 (−µ).
B
L
L
L
Let δ(ρ) ∈ [0, 1) be the fractional part of

(51)

ρ
,
1−ρ

i.e.,

ρ
ρ
−
.
δ(ρ) ,
1−ρ
1−ρ


Since K =

l

ρ
1−ρ

m

− 1, one has

ρ
1−ρ

(52)

= K + 1 − δ(ρ), so that (51) can be compactly written as

C
= (1 − ρ) [ δ(ρ) log2 qK (−µ) + (1 − δ(ρ)) log2 qK+1 (−µ) ] .
B
In the absence of self-interference (α = 0), one has g = P̄y /P̄x , µ = 1 +

k
snr
1 + ρ , k ≥ 0, so that (53) yields


snr
C
= ρ log2 1 +
(no self-interference).
B
ρ

snr
ρ

(53)
and qk (−µ) =

(54)

On the other hand, using the high-SNR approximation 1 + αg + µ ≈ µ when computing qk (−µ)
in (53) yields qk (−µ) ≈ µk , and therefore the asymptotic expression of the spectral efficiency
(53) for high SNR is
αg
C
≈ ρ log2 snr + ρ log2
B
ρLG

(high SNR),

(55)

with αg the solution of (40). Note that the second term in the right-hand side of (55) depends
only on ρ and LG, but not on the SNR. The pre-log factor in (55) is the ratio of the signal
 
bandwidth to the system bandwidth ρ ∈ 21 , 1 , and is not affected by self-interference, whose
effect is a shift of the spectral efficiency vs. SNR curves.
V. R ECEIVER S TRUCTURES
In the general PD relay operation, its time-varying nature results in ICI in the frequency
domain as seen in (31), or equivalently (34). The decoding of symbols transmitted through
channels of the form (34) is a well-studied problem, especially in MIMO systems [33]. As
an alternative to the optimal maximum likelihood (ML) receiver, which achieves the spectral
efficiency (53) at the expense of potentially large computational complexity, in this section we
analyze the performance of four suboptimal detectors: (i) the direct detection scheme which treats
interference as noise, (ii) the zero-forcing (ZF) receiver, (iii) the Linear Minimum Mean Squared
Error (LMMSE) receiver, and (iv) the Successive Interference Cancellation (SIC) receiver.

15

A. Direct decoding
The channel model (34) can be rewritten as
R̄[q] =

√

√
g(TN − IN )DN X̄[q] + W̄[q].

gDN X̄[q] +

(56)

The first and second terms in the right-hand side of (56) respectively represent the signal part
√
√
(since the matrix gDN is diagonal) and the intercarrier interference (since the matrix g(TN −
g P̄x
I ,
ρ N

IN )DN has zeros on the diagonal). The signal covariance matrix is
interference plus noise is CI+N ,

g P̄x
T̃N T̃H
N
ρ

whereas that of the

+ BN0 IN , where T̃N , TN − IN . Therefore, the

achievable rate of a direct decoding strategy in which subcarriers are independently decoded
with the interference term regarded as noise is given by
RDirect = ∆f

N
X


log2 1 + ρDirect
,
n

(57)

n=1

where ρDirect
is the signal-plus-interference-to-noise ratio (SINR) at the n-th subcarrier:
n
ρDirect
=
n

µ
g P̄x /ρ
i
h
=
[CI+N ]n,n
1 + µ T̃N T̃H
N

,

(58)

n,n

with µ as in (37). From (33), the diagonal elements of T̃N T̃H
N can be readily found: writing
n = (k − 1)P + m with k ∈ {1, . . . , K + 1} and m ∈ {1, . . . , P },
h
i
1 − (αg)k−1
T̃N T̃H
=
αg
,
N
1 − αg
n,n

(59)

where αg is obtained from (40). Using (58)-(59), and with δ(ρ) as in (52), the corresponding
spectral efficiency can be written as
1
RDirect
=
B
L

N
X
n=1



log2 1 +
"

= (1 − ρ)

K
X


µ
h

1 + µ T̃N T̃H
N

log2 1 +

k=1

+ (1 − δ(ρ)) log2

(60)




i
n,n

!

µ
k−1

1 + αg 1−(αg)
µ
1−αg
!#
µ
1+
.
K
µ
1 + αg 1−(αg)
1−αg

(61)

In the absence of self-interference (α = 0), all log terms in (61) are equal; and since (1−ρ)(K +


1 − δ(ρ)) = ρ, (61) becomes ρ log2 1 + snr
, i.e., direct decoding is of course optimal, see (54).
ρ
On the other hand, when α > 0, all of the log terms in (61) tend to finite values as the SNR
increases, except for the one corresponding to k = 1 in the summation. Hence, in the high SNR

16

regime, (61) behaves as (1 − ρ) log2 snr + c with c independent of snr, so that the pre-log factor
is now 1 − ρ. When compared with (55), this shows the detrimental effect of self-interference
when its structure is not exploited in the decoding process. As ρ is increased, self-interference
becomes more pronounced due to the larger overlap of the spectral supports of the relay input
and output signals.
B. ZF Receiver
√
In view of Lemma 2, the inverse of the channel matrix in model (34) is ( gTN DN )−1 =
√
√1 DH
(I − αge−jθ0 SN ), which can be implemented with very low complexity. After applig N N
cation of this ZF receiver, each subcarrier is independently decoded. The achievable rate with
the ZF receiver is given by
RZF = ∆f

N
X


,
log2 1 + ρZF
n

(62)

n=1

where

ρZF
n

is the signal-to-noise ratio at the n-th subcarrier. Since the covariance matrix of the

post-processing noise is

BN0
H
−1
DH
N (TN TN ) DN ,
g

ρZF
n =

BN0
g

one has

P̄x /ρ
H
−1
[DN (TH
N TN ) DN ]n,n

=

µ
−1
[(TH
N TN ) ]n,n

.

(63)

√
√
H
−1
H
= IN − αge−jθ0 SN − αgejθ0 SH
Using Lemma 2, (TH
N TN )
N + αgSN SN . The matrix SN SN
is diagonal, with the first P = L − N diagonal elements equal to 0 and the last N − P equal


−1
equals 1 for n = 1, . . . , P and 1 + αg for n = P + 1, . . . , N .
to 1. Therefore, (TH
N TN )
n,n
This results in
RZF
= ρ log2 (1 + µ) + (2ρ − 1) log2
B



1 + αg + µ
1 + αg + (1 + αg)µ


,

(64)

which scales as ρ log2 snr for high SNR. The pre-log factor, ρ, is the same as that of the optimal
ML receiver, see (55), and in contrast with 1 − ρ for the direct decoding strategy of Sec. V-A.
Note that the second term in the right-hand side of (64) is non-positive (it is zero for α = 0)
and constitutes a penalty term.
C. LMMSE Receiver
Based on the channel model (34), the linear MMSE receiver computes X̂ = FH R̄. The matrix
h
i
F is chosen to minimize E kX̄ − X̂k2 , and is given by
−1
1
−1
F = √ TN TH
T N DN ,
N + µ IN
g

(65)

17

with µ as in (37). The achievable rate with the LMMSE receiver is given by
N
X


log2 1 + ρLMMSE
,
n

(66)

N

CLMMSE
ρ X
=
log2 1 + ρLMMSE
,
n
B
N n=1

(67)

RLMMSE = ∆f

n=1

with corresponding spectral efficiency

where ρLMMSE
is the SINR at the n-th subcarrier. It is given by
n
=
ρLMMSE
n

qn
,
1 − qn

√
(see e.g. [33]), with qn the (n, n) entry of the effective channel matrix FH ( gTN DN ):
h
i
−1
H
H
−1
qn = TN TN TN + µ IN
TN
n,n


H
−1
= 1 − (IN + µTN TN ) n,n ,

(68)

(69)
(70)

for which it does not seem possible to obtain a closed-form expression. In the high SNR regime
√
(µ → ∞), the MMSE receiver (65) approaches the ZF receiver ( gTN DN )−1 , and therefore
the spectral efficiency (67) approaches (64) asymptotically as snr → ∞.
D. Successive Interference Cancellation Receiver
√
The channel matrix gTN DN in (34) is lower triangular, which makes application of successive decoding particularly attractive. The sequence of symbols in the first carrier R̄1 is decoded
and used to substract X̄1 from the next affected carrier, whose index is L−N . The process would
continue until all carriers are decoded without interference. This SIC scheme is still suboptimal,
because the power of the interference terms is not exploited. Since the diagonal elements of the
√
channel matrix gTN DN have all square magnitude g, and the covariance matrices of X̄ and
W̄ are

P̄x
I
ρ N

and BN0 IN respectively, the achievable rate of the SIC receiver is readily found

to be
RSIC



g P̄x
= Bu log2 1 +
.
ρBN0

(71)

The corresponding spectral efficiency is therefore


RSIC
αg snr
= ρ log2 (1 + µ) = ρ log2 1 +
,
B
LG ρ

(72)

with µ as in (37) and αg given by the positive solution of (40). Comparing (72) with (54), it is
seen that the SIC receiver suffers an effective SNR reduction with respect to the ideal case with

18

no self-interference given by the factor

αg
LG

=

g P̄x
,
P̄y

which is the ratio of the power of the useful

signal component, g P̄x , to the total relay transmit power P̄y ; the rest of the power P̄y − g P̄x
corresponds to the self-interference, as seen in (4). Also note that for high SNR, (72) achieves
(55), so the SIC receiver is optimal in high SNR, as could be expected.
VI. HD VERSUS FD OPERATION
A high amount of self-interference can be expected to favor HD over FD operation, since the
additional bandwidth will not compensate for the degradation due to the interference. Motivated
by the practical importance of the HD and FD operation modes, we quantify the spectral
efficiency in both cases as a function of the SNR and loop gain. On the one hand, the HD
spectral efficiency is easily computed:


1
P̄y
1
C
= log2 1 +
= log2 (1 + 2 snr) ,
B HD 2
N0 B/2
2

(73)

which of course is independent of LG. Observe that (73) can also be obtained from (53) by
taking ρ = 21 , since in that case one has K = 0, δ(ρ) = 0, and µ = 2 snr.
On the other hand, the following result provides the FD spectral efficiency (assuming optimal
ML decoding) in closed form (see Appendix C for the proof):
Lemma 3: As ρ → 1, the spectral efficiency (53) becomes
!
p
1 + snr + 2 LG + (1 + snr)2 + 4 LG snr
C
= log2
.
B FD
2(1 + LG)

(74)

In the absence of self-interference (LG = 0), the FD spectral efficiency (74) reduces to
log2 (1 + snr), which is always larger than (73) and approaches 2 ·

C
B HD

for large snr. On the

other hand, as the loop gain increases (LG → ∞), the FD spectral efficiency falls to zero,
showing the detrimental effect of self-interference in FD operation.
Consider now the direct decoding strategy (all self-interference is regarded as noise) applied
to the FD case. Using an approach analogous to that in Appendix C, it can be shown that (61)
becomes


RDirect
snr
lim
= log2 1 +
,
ρ→1
B
1 + LG + LG snr

(75)

which is in agreement with the corresponding expression in [34]. Note that, as snr → ∞, (75)

1
.
saturates at log2 1 + LG
An important issue regarding the design of FD relays is that of transmit power optimization
[23], [34]. If we regard P̄y as the maximum available power at the relay and allow for power

19

control, so that the relay transmit power is Py = p P̄y with 0 ≤ p ≤ 1, then the spectral
efficiency of the FD relay with direct decoding is given by (61) upon substituting snr and LG
by p snr and p LG, respectively. It can be readily checked that the maximum of (75) is attained
o
nq
BN0 Px
,
P̄
for Py = min
y , yielding
α


snr
1
RDirect  log2 1 + 1+LG+LG snr , if LG ≤ snr ,
lim
=
(76)
snr
ρ→1
 log2 1 +
B
√
, if LG ≥ 1 .
snr

LG+2 LG snr

Therefore, having the FD relay transmit at full power is not necessarily optimal when selfinterference is regarded as noise, as observed in [19], [23], [34]: if the self-interference is
sufficiently large (as determined by the condition LG ≥

1
),
snr

then it is better to reduce the

transmit power. On the other hand, the expression resulting from replacing snr and LG by p snr
and p LG, respectively, in (74) turns out to be monotonically increasing in p ∈ [0, 1]; therefore,
with ML decoding, having the relay transmit at full power is optimal.
The regions for which one operational mode (HD or FD) outperforms the other are depicted in
Fig. 4, where the lines correspond to the boundary (set of points such that the spectral efficiencies
of the FD and HD modes become equal) for ML and direct decoding (with and without power
control for the latter).
•

For ML decoding, and with asymptotically small SNR, this boundary is the horizontal line
p
. Note that whenever the loop
LG = 21 , whereas the asymptote for large snr is LG = snr
2
gain is below −3 dB, FD outperforms HD regardless of the snr value. For loop gain values
larger than −3 dB, the spectral efficiency of FD is larger for sufficiently high SNR.

•

For direct decoding, the situation is quite different. Even with optimal power control, FD
cannot perform better than HD as soon as LG > −7 dB, regardless of the SNR.
VII. R ESULTS

Fig. 5 shows the spectral efficiency of the PD A&F relay network with uniform power
allocation across the input bandwidth Bu , and for different receiver strategies. The operation
point is determined by the bandwidth ratio ρ = Bu /B, the signal-to-noise ratio snr = P̄y /(BN0 ),
and the magnitude of the coupling (loop gain) LG. The different curves in Fig. 5 are as follows:
•

No SI: this performance upper bound corresponds to the case without self-interference
(α = 0), and is given by (54).

20

15
ML
Direct Decoding,
no power control
Direct Decoding,
optimal power control

10

HD
FD

LG (dB)

5

0

−5

HD
FD

−10

−15
−10

−5

0

5

10
snr (dB)

15

20

25

30

Fig. 4: HD vs. FD performance. For the ML and direct decoding strategies, the corresponding
lines represent the boundary of the regions in which one of these modes outperforms the other.

•

ML: spectral efficiency of an optimum ML decoder, given by (53), and based on the
frequency-domain approach of Sec. IV.

•

SIC: spectral efficiency with a SIC-based receiver, given by (72).

•

LMMSE: spectral efficiency with a linear MMSE-based receiver, computing as in Sec. V-C.
Since a closed-form expression is lacking, a total of N = 1000 subcarriers was used in the
numerical computations.

•

ZF: spectral efficiency with a ZF-based linear receiver, given by (64).

•

Direct Dec.: spectral efficiency with a direct decoding strategy, given by (61).

•

TD: These points are computed following the time-domain approach of Sec. III, for values
Nch −1
,
Nch

Nch = 2, . . . , 10. A truncated sinc was assumed for the filter Lu (f ), with
m

l
`p +1
delay t0 satisfying Bt0 = 5Nch . The block size M was taken as M =
+
κ
Nch ,
Nch
of ρ =

with κ = 300.
•

Full Duplex: spectral efficiency of the Full-Duplex relay, given by (74).

Fig. 5 shows results for three SNR values (5, 10 and 15 dB) and two coupling scenarios:
LG = −5 dB (weak coupling, i.e., self-interference power lower than signal power) and LG = 5
dB (strong coupling, i.e., self-interference power higher than signal power).

21

A close match is observed between the spectral efficiency values obtained via the time-domain
approach of Sec. III and those obtained under the frequency-domain approximation. Note that
the latter approach does not rely on the existence of a periodic behavior of the PD relay and is
computationally much simpler.
Regardless of the receiver strategy, and as soon as ρ > 12 , the performance of the PD relay
significantly degrades in the presence of self-interference, as can be seen by comparing the
left and right columns in Fig. 5. This degradation is particularly severe for the direct decoding
approach, which brings out the need to take self-interference into account at the receiver even
in weak coupling scenarios. SIC detection provides close to optimal performance, except in low
SNR conditions, as expected; and it outperforms LMMSE and ZF in general.
The jagged appearance of the spectral efficiency curves with the bandwidth ratio ρ in strong
coupling scenarios is due to our assumptions of ideal brickwall filter responses and rectangular
power spectral densities, which make the analysis tractable. As a result, the number of selfinterference terms K in (5) increases by one as ρ crosses the values of the form 23 , 34 , 45 ,. . . ,
producing abrupt changes in the derivative of the spectral efficiency at those points.
Under strong coupling, it is observed that the advantage of PD (ρ > 12 ) with respect to HD
(ρ = 21 ) is in general small, if any. On the other hand, in weak coupling scenarios, spectral
efficiency monotonically improves with the bandwidth ratio ρ. This improvement is obtained
at the cost of the additional complexity required at the receiver to manage the (weak) selfinterference, because the number K of self-interference terms to handle increases with ρ, up to
K = ∞ for ρ = 1 (FD mode). In this way, selection of an intermediate PD mode with

1
2

<ρ<1

allows to trade off performance (in terms of spectral efficiency) and decoding complexity. As
an example, in the setting of Fig. 5 with snr = 15 dB and LG = −5 dB, the PD modes
corresponding to ρ =

2
3

(for which K = 1) and ρ =

3
4

(K = 2) provide improvements of up to

20% and 30% with respect to the HD mode, respectively. This is further illustrated in Figs. 6
and 7: even for LG = 0, i.e., a self-interference component of the same power as the signal,
the PD mode with ρ =

2
3

provides a sizable improvement with respect to HD if the SNR is

sufficiently high, and with moderate receiver complexity relative to FD.
VIII. C ONCLUSIONS
An Amplify-and-Forward relay with partial overlap between input and output spectra, generalizing the well-known half-duplex and full-duplex cases, has been proposed and analyzed in the

22

snr = 5 dB, LG = −5 dB

snr = 5 dB, LG = 5 dB
2
Spectral Efficiency, bits/s/Hz

Spectral Efficiency, bits/s/Hz

2

1.5

1

0.5

0
0.5

No SI
ML
SIC
LMMSE
ZF
Direct Dec.
TD
Full Duplex

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.5

1

0.5

0
0.5

1

No SI
ML
SIC
LMMSE
ZF
Direct Dec.
TD
Full Duplex

0.6

0.7

Bu/B

3

3

2.5
2

1
0.5
0
0.5

No SI
ML
SIC
LMMSE
ZF
Direct Dec.
TD
Full Duplex

0.6

1.5
1

0.8

0.9

0
0.5

1

0.6

0.7

4

Spectral Efficiency, bits/s/Hz

Spectral Efficiency, bits/s/Hz

4

3
No SI
ML
SIC
LMMSE
ZF
Direct Dec.
TD
Full Duplex

3

2

1

0.8
Bu/B

1

snr = 15 dB, LG = 5 dB
5

0.7

0.9

u

snr = 15 dB, LG = −5 dB

0.6

0.8
B /B

5

0
0.5

1

No SI
ML
SIC
LMMSE
ZF
Direct Dec.
TD
Full Duplex

u

1

0.9

2

B /B

2

1

2.5

0.5

0.7

0.9

snr = 10 dB, LG = 5 dB
3.5

Spectral Efficiency, bits/s/Hz

Spectral Efficiency, bits/s/Hz

snr = 10 dB, LG = −5 dB
3.5

1.5

0.8
Bu/B

0.9

1

0
0.5

No SI
ML
SIC
LMMSE
ZF
Direct Dec.
TD
Full Duplex

0.6

0.7

0.8
Bu/B

Fig. 5: Spectral efficiency of the A&F PD relay vs. ρ = Bu /B. Left: weak coupling (LG = −5
dB); right: strong coupling (LG = 5 dB); snr = 5 dB (top), 10 dB (middle) and 15 dB (bottom).

8

8

6

6
bits/s/Hz

bits/s/Hz

23

4

4

2

2
LG = −6 dB

0
−10

0

10
snr, dB

20

LG = 0 dB
0
−10

30

8

10
snr, dB

30

FD
PD, Bu/B = 2/3

bits/s/Hz

6

4

HD
4

2

2
LG = 6 dB

0
−10

20

8

6
bits/s/Hz

0

0

10
snr, dB

20

LG = 12 dB
30

0
−10

0

10
snr, dB

20

30

Fig. 6: Spectral efficiencies (for an optimum ML decoder) of the FD, PD (ρ = 23 ) and HD modes
vs. snr.

7

7
snr = 20 dB

6

6

5

5

4

4

bits/s/Hz

bits/s/Hz

snr = 10 dB

3

3

2

2

1

1

0
−20

0
−20

FD
PD, Bu/B = 2/3
HD

−10

0
LG, dB

10

20

−10

0
LG, dB

10

20

Fig. 7: Spectral efficiencies (for an optimum ML decoder) of the FD, PD (ρ = 23 ) and HD modes
vs. LG.

24

presence of self-interference at the relay. Its spectral efficiency for different overlap ratios has
been obtained by exploiting the LPTV nature of this Partial Duplex relay. The fact that this type
of relay belongs to the class of bandwidth-preserving LPTV filters allowed to apply a frequencydomain approach which shows a remarkable accuracy to predict the true spectral efficiency. An
important conclusion is that proper management of self-interference (which should not be simply
regarded as noise) becomes mandatory in order to reap the benefits of spectrum overlap. With
this in mind, several suboptimal decoding strategies at the receiver were also analyzed, among
which Succesive Interference Cancellation emerges as a promising technique, performing close
to the optimal ML decoder in high SNR. By effectively limiting the number of self-interference
terms or ”echoes”, the proposed Partial Duplex mode provides a means to trade off spectral
efficiency and receiver complexity.
A PPENDIX A
P ROOF OF L EMMA 1
Assume α > 0. If ρ = 1, then K = +∞ and (40) reads as

P∞

k=1 (αg)

k

= LG. This implies

0 ≤ αg < 1 (note that αg is the squared magnitude of the pole of the transfer function of the
αg
1−αg

LG
= LG, from which αg = 1+LG
.
PK+1
If ρ < 1, consider the polynomial p(s) = −ρLG + k=1 (1 − k(1 − ρ))sk . First, note that the

FD relay, which therefore is stable), and

coefficients 1 − k(1 − ρ) are positive: for k = 1, . . . , K + 1,



ρ
1 − k(1 − ρ) ≥ 1 − (K + 1)(1 − ρ) = 1 −
(1 − ρ).
1−ρ
Write now

l

ρ
1−ρ

m

=

ρ
1−ρ

(77)

+ δ, with δ ∈ [0, 1). Then (77) reads

1 − k(1 − ρ) ≥ 1 − (ρ + δ(1 − ρ)) = (1 − ρ)(1 − δ) > 0,

(78)

since ρ < 1. From the positivity of this terms it follows that lims→∞ p(s) = +∞. Since p(0) =
PK+1
−ρLG ≤ 0, p(s) has at least a root in s ∈ [0, +∞). Moreover, p0 (s) =
k=1 (1 − k(1 −
ρ))ksk−1 ≥ 0 for all s ≥ 0, so that p(s) is monotonically increasing in s ∈ [0, +∞). This
implies that the root is unique.
Finally, if α = 0 (no self-interference), then LG = 0 as well, so (40) ceases to be informative.
However, from (39),

1
N

tr{TN TH
N } = 1, and substituting this in (38) yields P̄y = g P̄x .

25

A PPENDIX B
P ROOF OF T HEOREM 1
Given P ∈ N, a, b, φ ∈ R and c ∈ C, let us define the matrices AM (a, c, φ) ∈ CM ×M and
CM (c, φ) ∈ CM ×P as follows: for M > P ,

a
0TP −1 cejφ


...
 0P −1
0P −1

 ∗ −jφ T
 ce
0P −1
a
AM (a, c, φ) = 

..
.



..
.





...
...
..

cej(M −P )φ

.
..



CM (c, φ) = 


0M ×(P −M )

0P −1

c∗ e−j(M −P )φ 0TP −1




0(M −P )×P




CM (c, φ) = 
 cej(M −P )φ


..

.

whereas for M ≤ P , AM (a, c, φ) = aIM and


.

cejM φ

a







,













,






(79)

(80)



cejφ
...
cejM φ



.


From these, and for N > P , define now ZN (a, b, c, φ) ∈ CN ×N as


AN −P (a, c, φ) CN −P (c, φ)
.
ZN (a, b, c, φ) = 
CH
(c,
φ)
bI
P
N −P

(81)

(82)

Note that the matrix QN − λIN , with QN defined by (46)-(48), can be written as QN − λIN =
√
ZN (a, b, c, φ) with a = 1 + αg − λ, b = 1 − λ, c = − αgejθ0 and φ = φ0 .
In order to compute det ZN (a, b, c, φ), we use the expression for the determinant of partitioned
matrices to obtain


1
H
det ZN (a, b, c, φ) = b det AN −P (a, c, φ) − CN −P (c, φ)CN −P (c, φ) .
b
P

(83)

26

If P < N ≤ 2P , (83) readily evaluates to
N −P

|c|2
P
,
det ZN (a, b, c, φ) = b a −
b

P < N ≤ 2P.

(84)

On the other hand, for N > 2P , since


CN −P (c, φ)CH
N −P (c, φ) =



0(N −2P )×(N −2P )

,

(85)


|c|2
a, a −
, c, φ ,
b

(86)

2

|c| IP

it follows that
1
AN −P (a, c, φ) − CN −P (c, φ)CH
N −P (c, φ) = ZN −P
b



so that the following recursive relation is obtained:


|c|2
P
, c, φ ,
det ZN (a, b, c, φ) = b det ZN −P a, a −
b

N > 2P.

(87)

Let us define the scalar sequence
γ̃1 (a, b, c) = b,

γ̃n (a, b, c) = a −

From (84) and (87), one finds that, with K =

N 
P

|c|2
,
γ̃n−1 (a, b, c)

n ≥ 2.

(88)

− 1,

N −KP
det ZN (a, b, c, φ) = γ̃K+1
(a, b, c)

K
Y

γ̃nP (a, b, c),

(89)

n=1

which is independent of the phase angles φ and ∠c. Alternatively, let γk (a, b, c) ,

Qk

n=1

γ̃n (a, b, c).

Then (89) can be rewritten as
det ZN (a, b, c, φ) = [γK (a, b, c)](K+1)P −N [γK+1 (a, b, c)]N −KP .

(90)

The terms γk (a, b, c) can be obtained recursively as follows. One has
γ1 (a, b, c) = b,

γ2 (a, b, c) = ab − |c|2 ,

(91)

whereas for k > 2,
γk = γk−1 γ̃k



|c|2
= γk−1 a −
γ̃k−1


|c|2 γk−2
= γk−1 a −
γk−1
= aγk−1 − |c|2 γk−2 .

(92)

Particularizing this recursion for a = 1 + αg − λ, b = 1 − λ, |c|2 = αg, the result in Theorem 1
is proved.

27

A PPENDIX C
P ROOF OF L EMMA 3
In order to compute the asymptotic value of (53) as ρ → 1, we take ρ =

N
N +1

and make

N → ∞. With this choice of ρ, one has K + 1 = N and δ(ρ) = 0, so that, from (53),
C
B

=

1
K+2

log2 qK+1 (−µ). Clearly, as K → ∞, qK+1 (−µ) must diverge, or otherwise

go to zero. In fact, for

C
B

C
B

would

to have a finite and positive limit as K → ∞, one must have

qK (−µ) ≈ abK asymptotically, for some finite a > 0, b > 1, and the spectral efficiency becomes


log2 qK+1 (−µ)
log2 a
K +1
lim
= lim
+
log2 b = log2 b.
(93)
K→∞
K→∞
K +2
K +2 K +2
To find b, note that b = limk→∞

qk (−µ)
.
qk−1 (−µ)

From the recursion (49), one has

qk (−µ)
qk−2 (−µ)
= (1 + αg + µ) − αg
.
qk−1 (−µ)
qk−1 (−µ)
Now, from Lemma 1, one has αg →
follows that µ →

snr
1+LG

LG
1+LG

(94)

for ρ → 1. Using this and the definition (37), it

as ρ → 1. Therefore, taking the limit as k → ∞ in both sides of (95),


LG
snr
LG 1
b= 1+
+
.
(95)
−
1 + LG 1 + LG
1 + LG b

This quadratic equation has the following solutions:
p
1 + snr + 2 LG ± (1 + snr)2 + 4 LG snr
b=
.
2(1 + LG)

(96)

The solution corresponding to the minus sign in (96) can be easily shown to be no larger than
1, whereas the one corresponding to the plus sign is no smaller than 1 (both are equal to one
iff snr = 0). Therefore, the former can be discarded, and the latter yields (74).
R EFERENCES
[1] C. Mosquera and R. López-Valcarce, “Bandwidth allocation in partial duplex relaying,” in IEEE Int. Workshop Signal
Process. Adv. Wireless Commun., 2016.
[2] J. N. Laneman, D. N. C. Tse, and G. W. Wornell, “Cooperative diversity in wireless networks: Efficient protocols and
outage behavior,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 50, no. 12, pp. 3062–3080, Dec. 2004.
[3] D. Soldani and S. Dixit, “Wireless relays for broadband access,” IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 46, no. 3, pp. 58–66, Mar.
2008.
[4] S. Berger, M. Kuhn, A. Wittneben, T. Unger, and A. Klein, “Recent advances in amplify-and-forward two-hop relaying,”
IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 47, no. 7, pp. 50–56, Jul. 2009.
[5] L. Jimenez Rodriguez, N. Tran, and T. Le-Ngoc, Amplify-and-Forward Relaying in Wireless Communications. Springer,
2015.

28

[6] A. Sabharwal, P. Schniter, D. Guo, D. W. Bliss, S. Rangarajan, and R. Wichman, “In-band full-duplex wireless: Challenges
and opportunities,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 32, no. 9, pp. 1637–1652, Sep. 2014.
[7] G. Liu, F. R. Yu, H. Ji, V. C. M. Leung, and X. Li, “In-band full-duplex relaying: A survey, research issues, and challenges,”
IEEE Commun. Surveys Tuts., vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 500–524, 2015.
[8] Z. Zhang, K. Long, A. V. Vasilakos, and L. Hanzo, “Full-duplex wireless communications: Challenges, solutions, and
future research directions,” Proc. IEEE, vol. 104, no. 7, pp. 1369–1409, Jul. 2016.
[9] L. Song, R. Wichman, Y. Li, and Z. Han, Full-Duplex Communications and Networks. Cambridge University Press, 2017.
[10] T. Riihonen, S. Werner, and R. Wichman, “Mitigation of loopback self-interference in full-duplex MIMO relays,” IEEE
Trans. Signal Process., vol. 10, no. 59, pp. 5983–5993, Dec. 2011.
[11] M. Duarte, C. Dick, and A. Sabharwal, “Experiment-driven characterization of full-duplex wireless systems,” IEEE Trans.
Wireless Commun., vol. 11, no. 12, pp. 4296–4307, Dec. 2012.
[12] D. Bharadia, E. McMilin, and S. Katti, “Full duplex radios,” in Proc. ACM SIGCOMM Conf., 2013, pp. 375–386.
[13] M. Heino, D. Korpi, T. Huusari, E. Antonio-Rodriguez, S. Venkatasubramanian, T. Riihonen, L. Anttila, K. Haneda,
R. Wichman, and M. Valkama, “Recent advances in antenna design and interference cancellation algorithms for in-band
full-duplex relays,” IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 53, no. 5, pp. 91–101, May 2015.
[14] K. Shibuya, “Broadcast-wave relay technology for digital terrestrial television broadcasting,,” Proc. IEEE, vol. 94, no. 1,
pp. 269–273, Jan. 2006.
[15] J. Y. Choi, M.-S. Hur, Y.-W. Suh, J.-S. Baek, Y.-T. Lee, and J.-S. Seo, “Interference cancellation techniques for digital
on-channel repeaters in T-DMB system,” IEEE Trans. Broadcast., vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 46–56, Jan. 2011.
[16] R. Lopez-Valcarce, E. Antonio-Rodriguez, C. Mosquera, and F. Perez-Gonzalez, “An adaptive feedback canceller for
full-duplex relays based on spectrum shaping,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 30, no. 8, pp. 1566–1577, Sep. 2012.
[17] E. Everett, A. Sahai, and A. Sabharwal, “Passive self-interference suppression for full-duplex infrastructure nodes,” IEEE
Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 680–694, Feb. 2014.
[18] N. Shende, O. Gurbuz, and E. Erkip, “Half-duplex or full-duplex relaying: A capacity analysis under self-interference,” in
Proc. 47th Annual Conf. Inf. Sci. Syst., 2013, pp. 207–211.
[19] L. Jimenez Rodriguez, N. H. Tran, and T. Le-Ngoc, “Optimal power allocation and capacity of full-duplex AF relaying
under residual self-interference,” IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett., vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 233–236, Apr. 2014.
[20] ——, “Performance of full-duplex AF relaying in the presence of residual self-interference,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun.,
vol. 32, no. 9, pp. 1752–1764, Sep. 2014.
[21] N. Zlatanov, E. Sippel, V. Jamali, and R. Schober, “Capacity of the Gaussian two-hop full-duplex relay channel with
residual self-interference,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 65, no. 3, pp. 1005–1021, Mar. 2017.
[22] Z. Chen, T. Q. S. Quek, and Y.-C. Liang, “Spectral efficiency and relay energy efficiency of full-duplex relay channel,”
IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 3162–3175, May 2017.
[23] T. Riihonen, S. Werner, and R. Wichman, “Hybrid full-duplex/half-duplex relaying with transmit power adaptation,” IEEE
Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 10, no. 9, pp. 3074–3085, Sep. 2011.
[24] ——, “Spatial loop interference suppression in full-duplex MIMO relays,” in Proc. 43rd Ann. Asilomar Conf. Signals,
Syst. Comput., 2009, pp. 1508–1512.
[25] Y. Y. Kang and J. H. Cho, “Capacity of MIMO wireless channel with full-duplex amplify-and-forward relay,” in IEEE Int.
Symp. Personal, Indoor Mobile Radio Commun., 2009, pp. 117–121.
[26] K. Yamamoto, K. Haneda, H. Murata, and S. Yoshida, “Optimal transmission scheduling for a hybrid of full- and halfduplex relaying,” IEEE Commun. Lett., vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 305–307, Mar. 2011.

29

[27] T. H. E. Ericson, “Modulation by means of linear periodic filtering,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. IT-27, no. 3, pp.
322–327, May 1981.
[28] P. P. Vaidyanathan and S. K. Mitra, “Polyphase networks, block digital filtering, LPTV systems, and alias-free QMF banks:
a unified approach based on pseudocirculants,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 381–391, Mar. 1988.
[29] P. Vanassche, G. Gielen, and W. Sansen, “Symbolic modeling of periodically time-varying systems using harmonic transfer
matrices,” IEEE Trans. Comput.-Aided Design Integr. Circuits Syst., vol. 21, no. 9, pp. 1011–1024, Sep. 2002.
[30] C. Mosquera, S. Scalise, and G. Taricco, “Spectral characterization of feedback linear periodically time-varying systems,”
in IEEE Int. Conf. Acoust., Speech, Signal Process., vol. 2, 2002, pp. 1209–1212.
[31] N. Shlezinger and R. Dabora, “On the capacity of narrowband PLC channels,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 63, no. 4, pp.
1191–1201, Apr. 2015.
[32] L. Brandenburg and A. Wyner, “Capacity of the Gaussian channel with memory: The multivariate case,” Bell System
Technol. J., vol. 53, no. 5, pp. 745–778, May 1974.
[33] D. Tse and P. Viswanath, Fundamentals of Wireless Communication.

Cambridge University Press, 2005.

[34] T. Riihonen, S. Werner, and R. Wichman, “Comparison of full-duplex and half-duplex modes with a fixed amplify-andforward relay,” in IEEE Wireless Commun. Netw. Conf., 2009, pp. 207–211.

