JOURNAL OF COMMUNICATIONS AND NETWORKS, VOL. 17, NO. 4, AUGUST 2015

1

Downlink Macro-diversity Precoding-aided Spatial
Modulation

arXiv:1712.06794v1 [cs.IT] 19 Dec 2017

Manar Mohaisen and Vitalii Pruks
Abstract: In this paper, a downlink macro-diversity precodingaided spatial modulation (MD-PSM) scheme is proposed, in which
two base stations (BSs) communicate simultaneously with a single
mobile station (MS). As such, the proposed scheme achieved twice
the spectral efficiency of the conventional PSM scheme. To render
the demodulation possible, the two signal constellation sets used at
the two BSs should be disjoint. Also, since the two BSs use the same
spatial dimension, i.e., indices of receive antennas, the Minkowski
sum of the two constellation sets should include unrepeated symbols. This is achieved through rotating the constellation set used
by the second BS, where the error rate is also minimized. After
obtaining the optimal rotation angles for several scenarios, a reduced complexity maximum-likelihood receiver is introduced. For
an equal number of transmit and receive antennas of 4 and at a
target BER of 10−4 , the simulation results show that the proposed
MD-PSM scheme outperforms the conventional PSM by about 17.3
dB and 12.4 dB, while achieving the same and double the spectral
efficiency, respectively. Also, due to the distributed nature of MDPSM, it is shown that the diversity order of the novel MD-PSM
scheme is twice that of the conventional PSM.
Index Terms: Spatial modulation, macro-diversity, multiple-input
multiple-output (MIMO), MIMO precoding, maximum-likelihood
detection.

I. INTRODUCTION

S

PATIAL modulation (SM) is a multiple-input multipleoutput (MIMO) system in which both signal symbols, such
as QAM/PSK symbols, and the indices of transmit antennas
carry information from the transmitter to the receiver [1]. Therefore, a terminal equipped with as few as a single RF chain
and several physical antennas can enjoy a relatively high spectral efficiency as compared to the single-input single-output
(SISO) case. In space-shift keying scheme, the conventional
PSM/QAM modulation schemes are replaced by the presence
or absence of energy [2]. That is, only the antenna whose index
carries information transmits energy and the remaining antennas are turned off. Both schemes were generalized so that more
than a single antenna can be simultaneously used. In this case,
fewer physical antennas are required to achieve the same spectral efficiency as compared to the activation of a single antenna
[3]-[5]. In [6], a quadrature SM (QSM) scheme was proposed in
which the real and imaginary parts of a signal constellation symbol, for instance M -ary PSK or QAM, are transmitted over an
in-phase and quadrature spatial dimensions, respectively. The
spatial constellation of the real and in-phase spatial dimensions
are the sets of antennas’ indices from which the real and imagThe authors are with the Department of Electrical, Electronics, and Communications Engineering, Korea Tech, Cheonan, R. of Korea, email: manar.subhi@koreatech.ac.kr

inary parts of the signal symbol are transmitted. This increases
the spectral efficiency by the number of bits transmitted over a
single spatial dimension [6]. Assuming QPSK modulation and
four transmit antennas, SM transmits two bits over the signal
symbols and two bits over a single spatial dimension, whereas
QSM transmits four bits over two spatial dimensions. This increases the spectral efficiency from 4 bits/s/Hz to 6 bits/s/Hz
[6]. An extended SM (ESM) scheme was introduced in [7], [8],
where information is carried not only by the signal and spatial
symbols but also by the constellations transmitted from the antennas. It is shown that ESM scheme increases the number of
transmitted bits per channel use by 1 or 2. Detailed comparison
among these schemes is given in [9].
Precoding-aided spatial modulation (PSM) combines the conventional MIMO precoding techniques [10] with spatial modulation, where a precoding vector is selected such that only a
single, or multiple, intended receive antenna is activated and the
energy received at the remaining antennas is minimized. The
performance of the PSM scheme with linear zero-forcing (ZF)
and minimum-mean square error (MMSE) precoders was addressed in [12]. It is worth mentioning that more complex precoders can be used in combination with SM in order to achieve
better error performance and diversity gains [11], [13]. Additionally, for an equal number of transmit and receive antennas,
both SM and PSM achieve the same spectral efficiency.
In this paper, we propose a downlink macro-diversity PSM
(MD-PSM) scheme, where two base stations (BSs) communicate simultaneously with a single mobile station (MS). The
novel MD-PSK scheme, therefore, achieves twice the spectral
efficiency of the conventional PSM scheme for the same system
parameters. Since both BSs use the same spatial modulation set,
i.e., the indices of the receive antennas, to convey information
to the MS, it is probable that BSs’ signals are sent to the same
receive antenna. Therefore, the constellation set from which the
non-zero, noiseless received signal is drawn is the union of the
constellation sets used at both BSs and their Minkowski sum,
i.e., element-wise addition of both sets. To render the demodulation possible at the receiver side, the following two conditions should be met: 1) The union of the two constellation sets
used at the two BSs and their Minkowski sum, referred to as
receive constellation set, should result in a set with unique symbols, even in the case when both BSs transmit the same number
of bits per signal symbol, and 2) the minimum Euclidean distance between the symbols in the receive constellation set should
be maximized in order to minimize the bit-error rate (BER). To
achieve this, we propose to rotate the constellation set at the second BS, where the optimal rotation angle is obtained for several
combinations of constellation sets. The rotation is performed
by multiplying each symbol in the modulation set by ejθ , where

1229-2370/15/$10.00 c 2015 KICS

2

JOURNAL OF COMMUNICATIONS AND NETWORKS, VOL. 17, NO. 4, AUGUST 2015

θ is the rotation angle. This rotation preserves the power of
symbols in the modulation set and the angles between them. A
detailed analysis of the convergence of the rotation angle is also
addressed, both using simulation results and analytically. Furthermore, the maximum-likelihood detector (MLD) was investigated and a reduced-complexity implementation, which benefits
from the structure of the MD-PSM system, is proposed.
The rest of this paper is as follows. In Section II, the conventional PSM scheme is reviewed. In Section III, the proposed
MD-PSM scheme is introduced, a low-complexity MLD is advised, and the optimization of the rotation angle is addressed.
In Section IV, simulation results and discussions of the findings
are given. In Section V, we address the computational complexity of the MD-PSM, and we draw the paper’s conclusions and
introduce future works in Section VI.

II. RELATED WORK
In the considered system, a BS equipped with nT transmit
antennas communicates with a MS equipped with nR = 2K
antennas. Only the BS has full knowledge of the channel
state information (CSI). The channel matrix H ∈ CnR ×nT =
[h1 , · · · , hnT ], where hi is the i-th column of H and the element
hi,j is the channel gain between the i-th receive and j-th transmit antenna. The channel gains are independent and identically
distributed (i.i.d.) and follow a circularly-symmetric Gaussian
distribution with mean and variance of zero and one, respectively. The precoding matrix P ∈ CnT ×nR = [p1 , · · · , pnR ] is
designed according to performance optimization criteria, such
as linear ZF and MMSE. The transmitted symbol s ∈ Ω, where
|Ω| = M = 2q , with q denoting the number of bits per signal
constellation symbol. At each transmission instant, a block of
m = (q + K) bits is transmitted. The first q bits modulate a
signal symbol and the remaining K bits determine the index of
the precoding vector pi such that the transmitted vector of size
(nT × 1) is given by:
x=

p

βPei sk ,

(1)

where ei is the i-th column of the (nR × nR ) identity matrix
InR . Note that, in (1), both i = 1, · · · , K and k = 1, · · · , |Ω|
bear information. In the case of ZF precoding, the normalization
factor β = nR /Tr(PPH ), where P is the pseudo-inverse of H
and Tr(·) is the trace operator. Accordingly, the received vector
is given by:
p
y = βHPei sk + n.
(2)
The noise vector n obeys the centered Gaussian distribution
with covariance matrix E(nnH ) = σn2 InR , where σn2 = [(q +
K)γb ]−1 and γb is the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) per bit. Due
to the zero structure of ei , the received signal at the l-th receive
antenna in the case of ZF precoding is given by:
(√
yl =

βsk + nl , if l = i
nl ,
otherwise

(3)

√
Let r = y/ β, then the MLD of the PSM scheme is given by:
(î, ŝk ) = arg min kr − ei sk k2 ,
i,sk
2

= arg min |sk | − 2Re{ri∗ sk }.

(4)

i,sk

where |·| and k·k are the absolute value of a real or complex
scalar and vector norm, respectively.
III. MACRO-DIVERSITY PSM
A. System Model and Proposed MD-PSM
A MIMO system is considered in which two BSs equipped
with nT1 and nT2 transmit antennas, respectively, communicate
simultaneously on the downlink with a single MS equipped with
nR = 2K receive antennas, where nT1 , nT2 ≥ nR . Also, note
that in recent deployments of massive MIMO systems, the number of antennas at the BS, nTi , for i = 1, 2, are much greater
than the number of antennas at the MS. Let sk1 ∈ Ωa for
k1 = 1, · · · , M1 and s0k2 ∈ Ωb for k2 = 1, · · · , M2 be the
signal symbols transmitted from the first and second BS, respectively, where M1 = 2q1 and M2 = 2q2 . The signal constellation set Ωa is a conventional QAM/PSK alphabet, while Ωb is
a rotated version of a conventional constellation set Ω such that
s0k2 ∈ Ωb = sk ejθ , where sk ∈ Ω and |Ωb | = |Ω| = M2 . The
rotation angle θ is optimized so that the bit-error rate (BER) at
the receiver is minimized. The optimization is addressed in the
following Subsection. Now, let xi and zi be the precoded vector transmitted by the i-th BS and the corresponding noiseless
received vector at the nR receive antennas, respectively. Then,
p
z1 = H1 x1 = β1 H1 P1 ei1 sk1 ,
p
(5)
z2 = H2 x2 = β2 H2 P2 ei2 s0k2 ,
where Hi and Pi are the matrix of channel gains from the
nTi transmit antennas to the nR receive antennas and the transmit precoding matrix employed at the i-th BS, respectively. In
contrast to (1), i1 , i2 , k1 and k2 bear information, leading to
a spectral efficiency of (q1 + q2 + 2K) bits/s/Hz, which is
twice the spectral efficiency of the conventional PSM scheme
for q = q1 = q2 . The (nR × 1) received vector in the case of ZF
precoding is therefore given by:
 

 x1
y = z + n = H1 H2
+ n,
x2
p
p
= β1 ei1 sk1 + β2 ei2 s0k2 + n,
(6)
where the noise covariance matrix E(nnH ) = σn2 InR , with
2
σn2 = [(q̄ + K)γb ]−1 and q̄ = q1 +q
2 . Also, z is the noiseless
received vector. In light of (6), we make the distinction between
the following two cases:
• i1 6= i2 : The received signal at the l-th antenna is given by:
√

√β1 sk1 + nl , if l = i1
yl =
(7)
β2 s0k2 + nl , if l = i2


nl ,
otherwise

MOHAISEN AND PRUKS: DOWNLINK MACRO-DIVERSITY PRECODING-AIDED SM

•

i1 = i2 : The received signal at the l-th antenna is given by:
(√
√
β1 sk1 + β2 s0k2 + nl , if l = i1 = i2
(8)
yl =
nl ,
otherwise

Since the values of the normalization factors β1 and β2 are not
equal, the optimization of the rotation angle should track the
time-varying nature of β1 and β2 , rendering the computational
complexity of the optimization process high. Also, different values of β renders the simplification of the ML receiver harder, as
will be described in the next Subsection. It is shown in [14] that
for nT > nR
i
h 
nR
.
(9)
E Tr (HHH )−1 =
nT − nR
Therefore, the expected value of the normalization factor is simplified to
h 
i
E [β] = nR /E Tr (HHH )−1 = nT − nR .
(10)
As nT gets
 large, based
 on the law of large numbers E [β] → nT
H −1
because (HH )
→ n1T InR [15]. This simplification is
valid for the case of transmissions of long duration. However,
for short transmission duration, these simplifications miss the
time-varying nature of β. Alternatively, we propose to use the
average value of β1 and β2 as a unified normalization at both
BSs. While this proposal does not affect the average value of
the total transmission power from both BSs,
√the resulting noise
amplification due to normalization, i.e., 1/ β, has lower maximum value, mean value and variance, leading to better performance as compared to simply using β1 and β2 at the first and
second BS, respectively. As a consequence, using the average
value of the normalization factors at both BSs slightly increases
the capacity of the MD-PSM system. In the sequel, a unified
2
normalization factor of β = β1 +β
will be used. This exchange
2
of information between the two BSs is made possible in the
next generations of communication
systems
√ through backhaul√
ing [16]. Let r = y/ β and w = n/ β, (7) and (8) are
rewritten as follows:


sk1 + wl , if l = i1
rl = s0k2 + wl , if l = i2
(11)


wl ,
otherwise
in the case of i1 6= i2 , and
(
(sk1 + s0k2 ) + wl = s00k3 + wl , if l = i1 = i2
rl =
wl ,
otherwise

3

the constellation set Ωd = Ωa ∪Ωb ∪Ωc , where ∪ is the set union
operator and |Ωd | = (M1 + M2 + M1 M2 ). More precisely,


sk1 , if i1 6= i2 , l = i1 , k1 = {1, · · · , M1 }
ml = s0k2 , if i1 6= i2 , l = i2 , k2 = {1, · · · , M2 }
(14)

 00
sk3 , if l = i1 = i2 , k3 = {1, · · · , M1 M2 }
B. Maximum-likelihood Detector
The receiver employs the maximum-likelihood principle to
estimate the signal and spatial symbols as follows:
(î1 , î2 , ŝk1 , ŝ0k2 ) = argmin kr − ei1 sk1 − ei2 s0k2 k2 ,
i1 ,i2 ,sk1 ,s0k

2

= argmin kei1 sk1 + ei2 s0k2 k2
i1 ,i2 ,sk1 ,s0k

2

− 2Re{ri∗1 sk1 + ri∗2 s0k2 }

(15)

Due to the zero structure of ei1 and ei2 , (15) is rewritten as
follows:
(î1 , î2 , ŝk1 , ŝ0k2 ) = argmin

i1 ,i2 ,sk1 ,s0k

2


 |sk1 |2 +|s0k2 |2 − Re{r∗ s + r∗ s0 }, if i 6= i
1
2
i1 k 1
i2 k 2
2
00 2
 |sk3 | − Re{r∗ s00 },
if i1 = i2
i1 k3
2
|sk |2 +|s0 |2

(16)

|s00 |2

Since the first terms in (16), i.e., 1 2 k2 and k23 , are deterministic, they can be precomputed and stored in memory. The
first term in (16) is divided by 2 in order to avoid multiplying the
second term by 2 at each evaluation. This reduces the computational complexity by (nR − 1)(M1 + M2 ) real multiplications.
The first line of (16), i.e., the case when (i1 6= i2 ), can be split
into two separate optimization problems as follows:
(î1 , ŝk1 ) = argmin

| sk1 |2
− Re{ri∗1 sk1 },
2

(î2 , ŝ0k2 ) = argmin

| s0k2 |2
− Re{ri∗2 s0k2 }.
2

i1 ,sk1

i2 ,s0k

(17)

2

This is rendered possible because the cost functions in the first
and second line of (17) are independent. Equation (17) is further
simplified to
(î1 , ŝk1 ) = arg max Re{ri∗1 sk1 },
i1 ,sk1

(î2 , ŝ0k2 )
(12)

in the case of i1 = i2 . The symbol s00k3 ∈ Ωc , where Ωc = Ωa ⊕
Ωb , with ⊕ denoting the Minkowski sum and |Ωc | = M1 M2
[17]. Mathematically put,

Ωc = sk1 + s0k2 |sk1 ∈ Ωa , s0k2 ∈ Ωb .
(13)
Discarding the noise term in (11) and (12), the non-zero, noiseless elements of the received vector, denoted by ml , belong to

= arg max Re{ri∗2 s0k2 },
i2 ,s0k

(18)

2

in the case of M -ary phase-shift keying (M-PSK) modulation
schemes, where the conveyed information is transmitted over
the phase of the signal symbols. In this case, the signal symbols
have equal square Euclidean norm.
Given the constellation sets Ωa and Ωb ,
|s00
k3
2

|sk1 |2
2
|2

|s0k |2
2
2
s00k3 ∈

and

are

easily computed. The computation of
, where
Ωc ,
however, depends on the modulation schemes used at both BSs
and the value of the optimal rotation angle, θopt . Further characterization of the symbols of Ωc is given in the following. We

4

JOURNAL OF COMMUNICATIONS AND NETWORKS, VOL. 17, NO. 4, AUGUST 2015

Table 1: The values |s00k (θ)|2 /2 and the corresponding φi when
both base stations use PSK modulation schemes.
Modulation
BPSK-BPSK

2
|s00
k (θ)| /2

φi

1 + cos(θ)

θ
2
θ
2
θ
2
θ
2
θ
2
θ
2
θ
2
θ
2
θ
2
θ
2
θ
2
θ
2
θ
2
θ
2

1 − cos(θ)
1 + cos(θ)

BPSK-QPSK/

1 − cos(θ)

QPSK-QPSK

1 + sin(θ)
1 − sin(θ)
1 + cos(θ)
1 − cos(θ)

BPSK-8PSK/
QPSK-8PSK/
8PSK-8PSK

1 + sin(θ)
1 − sin(θ)
1 + cos(θ +
1 − cos(θ +
1 + sin(θ +
1 − sin(θ +

π
)
4
π
)
4
π
)
4
π
)
4

Table 2: The values |s00k (θ)|2 /2 when one base station uses
16QAM and the second uses any of the PSK modulation
schemes.

θopt
+

π
2

+

π
2
π
4
π
4

−
+
+
−
+
+
−
−
+

π
2
π
4
π
4
π
8
3π
8
π
8
3π
8

Modulation

≥ 60◦

30◦

BPSK-16QAM/
15◦ , 30◦ /

QPSK-16QAM/

15◦ , 30◦ /

8PSK-16QAM

17.3◦ , 27.7◦

2
|s00
k (θ)| /2
√
1.4 + 1.8 cos(θ +
√
1.4 − 1.8 cos(θ −
√
1.4 − 1.8 cos(θ +
√
1.4 + 1.8 cos(θ −
√
0.6 + 0.2 cos(θ +
√
0.6 − 0.2 cos(θ −
√
0.6 − 0.2 cos(θ +
√
0.6 + 0.2 cos(θ −

1 + cos(θ + α)
1 − sin(θ + α)

θopt
π
)
4
π
)
4
π
)
4
π
)
4
π
)
4
π
)
4
π
)
4
π
)
4

32.1◦ /
32.1◦ /
8.4◦ , 36.6◦

1 − cos(θ + α)
1 + sin(θ + α)
1 − sin(θ − α)
1 − cos(θ − α)

make the distinction between 2 cases: 1) both BSs use PSK
modulation schemes, and 2) either or both of BSs use QAM
schemes with M > 4. In the sequel, the QPSK modulation set
used through this paper is given by {1, j, −1, −j}. This choice
was made in order to emphasize on the fact that lower-order PSK
modulation sets are geometrically subsets of higher-order ones.
The results for the first and second case are depicted in Table 1
and 2, respectively. The first case is explained in the following.
Let Ωc be split into N disjoint subsets such that Ωc = ∪N
i=1 Ωi ,
where the symbols belonging to each of these subsets have an
equal Euclidean norm. Let φi be the phase of the first symbol
in the subset Ωi , then the symbols of the subset are uniformly
distributed over a circle and located at angles
φi +

2π(l − 1)
, l = 1, · · · , |Ωi |,
|Ωi |

(19)

where φi is given in Table 1 and |Ωi | = |Ωa |. For example,
|Ωi | = 2, 4 and 8, in the case of BPSK-8PSK, QPSK-8PSK,
and 8PSK-8PSK, respectively, and the number of subsets, N , is
equal to |Ωb |.
Table 1 summarizes these results as a function of the rotation angle θ for several scenarios, where both BSs use M -ary
PSK modulation schemes. The leading 1 in the second column
of Table 1 can be neglected without affecting the optimization
problem, leading to further reduction in the computational complexity. For instance, in the case of QPSK-QPSK, where both
BSs use QPSK modulation, the pre-computation of |s00k (θ)|2 /2
requires the evaluation of only cos(θopt ) and sin(θopt ), which can
also be precomputed and saved in memory.
In the second case, i.e., at least one of the BSs uses 16QAM,
the 16QAM modulation set is split into four disjoint and scaled
4QAM subsets defined by the following pairs of Euclidean norm
and the angle of the first symbol of each subset.
√
π √
π
π
(20)
{( 0.2, ), ( 1.8, ), (1, α), (1, − α)},
4
4
2
where α = arctan(1/3) ≈ 18.435◦ . Table 2 shows the obtained
values of |s00k (θ)|2 /2 when the first BS uses M -ary PSK and the

1 + sin(θ − α)
1 + cos(θ − α)

second uses 16QAM scheme. It is worth recalling that each of
the values listed in the second column of Table 2 is repeated
M times as the second BS employs M -ary PSK modulation.
We dropped the computation of φi since a closed-form formula
is hard to obtain. Also, when both BSs use 16QAM, we obtained 40 different values for |s00k (θ)|2 /2, each repeated 4 or 8
times, resulting in M1 M2 = 256 values. These values, which
are omitted due to space limits, can be obtained through careful
consideration of the subsets given in (20).
Based on (17) and regardless of whether Ω = Ωa or not,
Ωa ∪ Ωb must be a set; that is, sk1 ∈ Ωa 6= s0k2 ∈ Ωb , ∀k1 ∈
{1, · · · , M1 } and k2 ∈ {1, · · · , M2 }. This is the first condition
that the choice of the optimal angle θopt should fulfil. The second
condition is derived from the second line of (16): the symbols
s00k3 ∈ Ωc for k3 ∈ {1, · · · , M1 M2 } should be distinct in order
to render the demodulation at the receiver side feasible. In other
words, the mapping from Ωa and Ωb to Ωc must be unique. The
first and second conditions are applied to exclude certain rotation angles which violate their basic concept of uniqueness.
However, an infinite set of potential rotation angles fulfil both
conditions. In the following Subsection, we introduce a strict
condition that embodies both the first and second conditions and
minimizes the BER.

C. Optimization of the Rotation Angle
As described in (11) and (12), the system equation reduces
to the additive-white Gaussian noise model. The minimum Euclidean distance between the signal symbols of the receive constellation set Ωd = Ωa ∪ Ωb ∪ Ωc , denoted by dmin (Ωd ), is a
determining factor of the BER performance: a larger dmin (Ωd )
leads to smaller BER. Let mi , mk ∈ Ωd , then the optimal rota-

MOHAISEN AND PRUKS: DOWNLINK MACRO-DIVERSITY PRECODING-AIDED SM

1

BPSK-BPSK
QPSK-QPSK
8PSK-8PSK
16QAM-16QAM

d min ( c )

0.8
0.6

5

Pr[mk ∈ Ωd ∩ mk ∈ Ωa ] = Pr[mk ∈ Ωd ∩ mk ∈ Ωb ],
=

0.4

M1
X

Pr[mk ∈ Ωa ]

k=1

0.2
0
0

20

40

60

=

80

M2
X

Pr[mk ∈ Ωb ],

k=1

(a)
0.4

BPSK-8PSK
BPSK-16QAM
QPSK-16QAM
8PSK-16QAM

0.3

d min ( c )

= Pr[i1 6= i2 ] = 1 −
Pr[mk ∈ Ωd ∩ mk ∈ Ωc ] =

MX
1 M2

Pr[mk ∈ Ωc ]

k=1

0.2

= Pr[i1 = i2 ] =

0.1
0
0

10

20

30

40

(b)

Fig. 1: Minimum Euclidean distance for several combinations
of modulation schemes versus the rotation angle θ, with BSs
using a) same modulation schemes, and b) different modulation
schemes.


θ

min

mi ,mk ,i6=k

2

|mi − mk |


,

(21)

The rotation angle is optimized through simulations and results
are depicted in Fig. 1(a) and (b) for several combinations of
modulation schemes used at the two BSs. For instance, the legend BPSK-16QAM refers to the scenario where the first and
second BS uses BPSK and 16QAM schemes, respectively, and
the rotation is applied to the constellation set at the second BS.
The curves for BPSK-QPSK and QPSK-QPSK, BPSK-8PSK
and QPSK-8PSK are equivalent. Except of the case of BPSKBPSK, the curves of dmin (Ωd ) are even symmetric around the
angle θ = π/4 (rad). Note that the optimal rotation angle when
both BSs use 16QAM is 30◦ . The optimal rotation angles for
the other cases are listed in the last columns of Tables 1 and 2.
While (21) obtains an accurate value of dmin (Ωd ), it does not
take into consideration the probabilities of symbols in the receive constellation set. These probabilities will affect the expected value of the Euclidean distance among signal symbols in
Ωd . More precisely, the BER performance of the ML receiver
depends on the average value of the Euclidean distance, which
is defined as
2
di,k = |si − sk | ,
(22)
where si and sk are the vectors transmitted by the first and second BS, respectively. As such, the average Euclidean distance
depends on the signal symbols in Ωd . Based on (11) and (12),
the probabilities of the noiseless, non-zero received symbols
mk ∈ Ωd are given as follows:

1
.
nR

(23)

The events in the first line of (23) occur simultaneously. This
implies that as nR grows large, the probability that the transmit
symbol ∈ Ωc vanishes. In this case, the optimal rotation angle
will converge to the one where Ωd = Ωa ∪ Ωb . As such, the
minimum Euclidean distance is increased, which leads to better
BER performance. Since the signal symbols in each of the sets
Ωa , Ωb , and Ωc are equiprobable, then
nR − 1
, k1 = 1, · · · , M1 ,
M1 n R
nR − 1
∈ Ωb ] =
, k2 = 1, · · · , M2 ,
M2 n R
1
, k3 = 1, · · · , M1 M2 .
∈ Ωc ] =
M1 M2 n R
(24)

Pr[mk = sk1 ∈ Ωa ] =
Pr[mk = s0k2

tion angle is given by:
θ̂ = arg max

1
,
nR

Pr[mk = s00k3

Based on (23) and the above discussion, it stems out that
lim Pr[mk ∈ Ωd ∩ mk ∈ Ωa ] =

nR →∞

lim Pr[mk ∈ Ωd ∩ mk ∈ Ωb ] ≈ 1,

nR →∞

lim Pr[mk ∈ Ωd ∩ mk ∈ Ωc ] ≈ 0.

nR →∞

(25)

This implies that while dmin (Ωd ) is fixed for given Ωa and Ωb ,
the average value of the Euclidean distance of Ωd converges to
dmin (Ωa ∪ Ωb ) since Pr[mk ∈ Ωc ] ≈ 0. For instance, when both
BSs use QPSK, θopt converges to π/4 as nR grows large.
IV. SIMULATION RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
Each BS has perfect knowledge of the state information of
the channel coupling its transmit antennas to the receive antennas of the single MS, whereas the MS does not have this information. We assume that BSs exchange their computed normalization factors, β1 and β2 , and both BSs use a unified normal2
ization factor of β1 +β
. In the legends of the following figures,
2
the conventional PSM is indicated by the three-element tuple
(nT , nR , q), while the proposed scheme is indicated by the fiveelement tuple (nT1 , nT2 , nR , q1 , q2 ).
Before evaluating the performance of the proposed MD-PSM
scheme, the choice of the optimal rotation angle is addressed

6

JOURNAL OF COMMUNICATIONS AND NETWORKS, VOL. 17, NO. 4, AUGUST 2015

10 0

10 0

10 0
(2,2,2,4,4)
(4,4,4,4,4)
(8,8,8,4,4)
(16,16,16,4,4)

(4,4,4,2,2)
(6,6,4,2,2)
(8,8,4,2,2)
(16,16,4,2,2)

bit error rate

(2,2,2,2,2)
(4,4,4,2,2)
(8,8,8,2,2)
(16,16,16,2,2)

0

10

20

30

40

0

10

(degree)

(a)

20

30

40

0

10

20

(degree)

30

40

(degree)

(b)

(c)

Fig. 2: BER performance of the proposed MD-PSM versus the rotation angle θ in the range [0,π/4] for a) QPSK and nTi = nR ,
b) QPSK and nTi ≥ nR , and c) 16QAM and QPSK and nTi = nR .
10 0
(4,4,6)
(4,4,4,2,2)
(8,4,6)
(8,8,4,2,2)
(12,8,6)
(12,12,8,1,2)

bit error rate

10 -1

10 -2

10 -3

10 -4

0

10

20

30

40

SNR per bit (dB)

Fig. 3: BER performance of the proposed MD-PSM versus that
of PSM for the same spectral efficiency.
10 0

10 -1

bit error rate

through Monte-Carlo simulations. Figure 2 depicts the BER
performance of the novel scheme for several scenarios. Figure
2(a) depicts the BER performance of the MD-PSM scheme for
several values of nTi = nR with QPSK modulation. The optimal rotation angle θopt is equal to 30◦ , 33◦ , 37◦ and 40◦ in the
case of nR = 2, 4, 8 and 16, respectively. To emphasize on
this finding, Fig. 2(b) depicts the BER performance for a fixed
nR and several values of nT1 = nT2 ≥ nR , where the noise effect is therefore reduced through increasing the diversity order
and the minimum singular values of H1 and H2 . The rotation
angle in this case is clearly equal to θopt = 33◦ . Figure 2(c)
depicts the performance of the proposed scheme when both BSs
use 16QAM. For nR = 2, 4, 8 and 16, θopt = 15◦ , 15◦ , 16◦ and
17◦ , respectively. We also remark that the BER performance is
almost the same in the case of nTi = nR = 16 at θ = 17◦ and
26◦ . Since dmin (Ωa ∪ Ωb ) = 25.5◦ , which is obtained through
simulations, these results coincide with our remarks on the convergence of θopt , given in Section III-C.
Offline optimization of the rotation angle is achievable with
low computational complexity because the search is performed
over a limited range of angles that depends on the modulation
order. For instance, the search range in the case of QPSK and
16PSK are [30, 45] and [9.7, 11.25], respectively. This range is
narrowed as the modulation order is increased, and the computational complexity of the search problem is therefore reduced.
The lower and upper bound of these intervals is the optimal rotation angle considering equiprobable symbols in the set Ωd and
when nR goes to infinity, respectively.
Figure 3 depicts the performance of the proposed MD-PSM
versus that of the conventional PSM for the same spectral efficiency. The modulation order is adjusted so that both MD-PSM
and PSM schemes achieve the same spectral efficiency while
keeping nT = nT1 = nT2 for the same nR . In the first case,
where nT = nT1 = nT2 = nR = 4, the proposed scheme outperforms PSM by more than 17.3 dB at a target BER of 10−4 .
In the case of nT = nT1 = nT2 = 8 and nR = 4, the proposed
scheme outperforms the conventional PSM by 5.5 dB. This gain
increases to 6.8 dB in the case of nT = nT1 = nT2 = 12 and
nR = 8, all at a target BER of 10−4 .
Figure 4 depicts the performance of the proposed MD-PSM
scheme versus that of the conventional PSM for nT = nT1 =

10 -2

-1
b

(2,2,2)
(4,4,2)
(8,8,2)
(16,16,2)
(2,2,2,2,2)
(4,4,4,2,2)
(8,8,8,2,2)
(16,16,16,2,2)

10 -3

10 -4

0

5

10

-2
b

15

20

25

30

SNR per bit (dB)

Fig. 4: BER performance of the proposed MD-PSM versus that
of PSM for nT = nT1 = nT2 = nR with QPSK, where the
MD-PSM scheme achieves twice the spectral efficiency of the
PSM scheme.

MOHAISEN AND PRUKS: DOWNLINK MACRO-DIVERSITY PRECODING-AIDED SM

(4,4,2)
(4,4,4,2,2)
(5,4,2)
(5,5,4,2,2)
(6,4,2)
(6,6,4,2,2)
(8,4,2)
(8,8,4,2,2)

10 -1
-1
b

bit error rate

10 -2

(2,2,4)
(4,4,4)
(8,8,4)
(16,16,4)
(2,2,2,4,4)
(4,4,4,4,4)
(8,8,8,4,4)
(16,16,16,4,4)

10 -1
10 -2
10 -3

10 -3
-2
b

10 -4
-5
b

10 -5
10 -6
-5

10 0

bit error rate

10 0

7

0

10 -4
10 -5

-4
b

5

10

15

20

25

30

10 -6
10

20

SNR per bit (dB)

Fig. 5: BER performance of the proposed MD-PSM versus that
of PSM for several values of nT = nT1 = nT2 and nR = 4,
where the MD-PSM scheme achieves twice spectral efficiency
and diversity order of the PSM scheme.

nT2 = nR and QPSK modulation, where the proposed scheme
achieves twice the spectral efficiency of the conventional PSM
scheme. Numerically, for nR = 2, 4, 8 and 16, the conventional
PSM scheme achieves 3, 4, 5, and 6 bits/s/Hz, while the proposed MD-PSM achieves 6, 8, 10, and 12 bits/s/Hz, respectively,
for the same number of receive antennas. Furthermore, the proposed scheme achieved a gain of 11.3, 12.4, 13.4, and 15 dB
for nR = nT = nT1 = nT2 = 2, 4, 8 and 16, respectively, at a
target BER of 10−4 . In addition to the gains in terms of spectral
efficiency and SNR, MD-PSM achieves a higher diversity order
due to its distributed nature. Based on (35) in [18], the diversity
order of the linear ZF precoding is (nT − nR + 1). Since two
BSs are used in the MD-PSM system equipped with nT1 and
nT2 transmit antennas, respectively, its total diversity order is
(nT1 + nT2 − 2nR + 2), while it is (nT − nR + 1) in the case of
the conventional PSM. For instance, MD-PSM scheme achieves
a diversity order of 2 while PSM achieves only 1, for all the system configurations depicted in Fig. 4. The theoretical diversity
curves indicated as γb−d , where d is the diversity order and γb is
linear value of the SNR per bit, are also drawn in Fig. 4. The
simulation results and the diversity curves are parallel at high
values of SNR, which implies that PSM and MD-PSM achieve
the theoretical diversity orders indicated above. It is also shown
in Fig. 4 that MD-PSM outperforms PSM for nT = nT1 + nT2
while achieving double its spectral efficiency. For instance, for
nT = 16, nT1 = nT2 = 8 and nR = 8, MD-PSM outperforms
PSM by more than 10 dB while achieving double the spectral efficiency and the diversity order. In this case, MD-PSM requires
a total of 24 antennas while PSM requires 32.
Figure 5 depicts the BER performance of MD-PSM versus
that of PSM for nR = 4 and several values of nT = nT1 = nT2
with QPSK modulation. The proposed scheme achieves twice
the spectral efficiency of the conventional PSM. The diversity
curves are also depicted for several values of diversity order.
At low values of SNR, the MD-PSM scheme lags the perfor-

30

SNR per bit (dB)

40

50

Fig. 6: BER performance of the proposed MD-PSM versus that
of PSM for nT = nT1 = nT2 = nR with 16QAM, where the
MD-PSM scheme achieves twice the spectral efficiency of the
PSM scheme.
mance of the conventional PSM, mainly due to the reduction in
the minimum Euclidean distance of the receive constellation set.
The minimum Euclidean distance is equal to 0.515 and 1.414
in the case of MD-PSM and PSM, respectively. However, the
proposed MD-PSM outperforms the PSM scheme at medium
to high values of SNR, depending on the value of nT , while
achieving double the diversity gain. This is clearly manifested
in the case of nT = 4, 5 and 6. The degradation in the BER
performance in the case of nT = 8 is tolerable, considering the
gains achieved by the proposed MD-PSM in terms of spectral
efficiency and diversity order as compared to the conventional
PSM scheme.
Figure 6 depicts the performance of the novel MD-PSM
scheme versus that of PSM for nT = nT1 = nT2 = nR with
16QAM. The novel MD-PSM outperforms the PSM scheme by
a maximum of 16.6 dB in the case of nR = 16 and a minimum
of 10.2 dB in the case of nR = 2, all at a target BER of 10−5 .
Besides, MD-PSM scheme doubles the diversity gain and spectral efficiency of the PSM scheme.
Finally, based on Figs. 2, 4, and 6, for the same zero-forcing
precoding and as nR increases, the BER performance of the conventional PSM deteriorates while that of the novel MD-PSM
improves. As the dimension of the channel matrix increases, its
minimum singular value, σmin , decreases (refer to [19] and references therein). For an nR × nR channel matrix, Theorem 2.36
in [14] states that
lim Pr[nR σmin ≥ x] = e−x−x

nR →∞

2

/2

.

(26)

This implies that the minimum singular value decreases as the
matrix dimension increases. For instance and following (26),
Pr[σmin ≥ 0.1] = 0.8025 and 0.0561 for nR = 2 and 16, respectively. While this Theorem is sufficient to reason for the
performance trend of the conventional PSM, the performance of
the MD-PSM scheme, on the other hand, is also affected by the
minimum Euclidean distance of the constellation set Ωd as well

8

JOURNAL OF COMMUNICATIONS AND NETWORKS, VOL. 17, NO. 4, AUGUST 2015

Table 3: Computational complexity of MD-PSM versus that of
PSM for an equal spectral efficiency.
scheme

spectral efficiency

PSM: (4, 4, 6)
MD-PSM: (4, 4, 4, 2, 2)
PSM: (12,8,6)
MD-PSM: (12, 12, 8, 1, 2)

8
9

complexity
704
264
1216
266

as by the statistics of σmin . Based on (25), it is implied that as
nR increases, the probability that mk ∈ Ωc decreases. While
the minimum Euclidean distance of Ωd is still the same regardless of the value of nR , its average value increases as nR increases, leading to improved BER performance of the proposed
MD-PSM scheme.

used constellation sets so that the computational complexity is
further reduced. All these gains are supported by both analytical
and simulation results.
Our future work is twofold: 1) designing unconventional constellation sets, taking into consideration the structure of the proposed scheme in order to either improve the error rate performance or reduce the computational complexity, or both, and 2)
investigating the combination of more sophisticated precoders
with the proposed scheme.
REFERENCES
[1]
[2]
[3]

V. COMPUTATIONAL COMPLEXITY

[4]

Based on (4), the computational complexity of the conventional PSM in terms of real multiplications is given by:

[5]

CPSM = M (3 + 2nR ).

(27)

[6]

Based on (16)-(18), the computational complexity of the MDPSM scheme is given by:

[7]

CMD-PSM = (M1 + M2 + M1 M2 )(3 + 2nR ).

[8]

(28)

For a fair comparison between the two schemes, we consider the
case of equal spectral efficiency depicted in Fig. 3, where MDPSM outperforms PSM by more than 5.5 dB for all the simulated
scenarios. For the two scenarios listed in Table 3, MD-PSM
scheme requires 37.5% and 21.9%, respectively, of the computational complexity of PSM. Using the results in Table 1 and 2
leads to further reduction in the computational complexity. For
instance, when one of the BSs uses 8PSk and the second uses
16QAM with nR = 4, the computational complexity is reduced
by (3M1 + 3M1 M2 − 4 = 404), where the computation of the
values in Table 2 requires four real multiplications, and the evaluation of two sine and four cosine functions. This reduces the
computational complexity by 24.16%.

[9]
[10]

[11]

[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]

VI. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORKS
In this paper, a macro-diversity PSM scheme is proposed,
where two BSs communicate simultaneously with a single MS
on the downlink. The proposed scheme achieves double the
spectral efficiency and diversity order of the conventional PSM.
Furthermore, substantial improvements in the error rate performance are achieved in several system configurations. These
gains are attained through optimizing the constellation sets used
at both BSs so that the minimum Euclidean distance of the receive constellation set is maximized. This is attained through
rotating the constellation set used at the second BS. Taking into
consideration the structure of the macro-diversity PSM scheme,
a simplified receiver based on the maximum-likelihood principle is devised. Analytical formulae are also derived for parts of
the maximum-likelihood’s cost function for the most commonly

[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]

R. Mesleh, H. Haas, S. Sinanovic, C. W. Ahn, and S. Yun, “Spatial modulation,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 57, no. 4, pp.
2228-2241, Jul. 2008.
J. Jeganathan, A. Ghrayeb, L. Szczecinski, and A. Ceron, “Space shift
keying modulation for MIMO channels,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless
Communications, vol. 8, no. 7, pp. 3692-3703, July 2009 )
J. Jeganathan, A. Ghrayeb, and L. Szczecinski, “Generalized space shift
keying modulation for MIMO channels,” in Proc. PIMRC, pp. 1-5, 2008.
A. Younis, S. Sinanovic, M. Di Renzo, R. Mesleh, and H. Haas, “Generalized sphere decoding for spatial modulation,” IEEE Transactions on
Communications, vol. 61, no. 7, pp. 2805-2815, July 2013.
A. Younis, R. Mesleh, M. Di Renzo, and H. Haas, “Generalized spatial
modulation for large-scale MIMO,” in Proc. Eusipco, pp. 346-350, Sep.
2014.
R. Mesleh, S. Ikki, and H. M. Aggoune, “Quadrature spatial modulation,”
IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 64, no. 6, pp. 2738-2742,
June 2015.
C.-C. Cheng, H. Sari, S. Sezginer, and Y. T. Su, “Enhanced spatial modulation with multiple signal constellations,” IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 63, no. 6, pp. 2237-2248, Jun. 2015.
C.-C. Cheng, H. Sari, S. Sezginer, and Y. T. Su, “New signal designs for
enhanced spatial modulation,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 15, no. 11, pp. 7766-7777, Nov. 2016.
E. Basar, “Index modulation techniques for 5G wireless networks,” IEEE
Communications Magazine, vol. 54, no. 7, Jul. 2016, pp. 168-175.
C. Peel, B. Hochwald, and A. Swindlehurst, “A vector-perturbation technique for near-capacity multiantenna multiuser communication - part I:
Channel inversion and regularization,” IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 53, no. 1, Jan. 2005, pp. 195-202.
B. Hochwald, C. Peel, and A. Swindlehurst, “A vector-perturbation technique for near-capacity multiantenna multiuser communication - part II:
Perturbation,” IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 53, no. 3, Mar.
2005, pp. 537 - 544.
L.L. Yang, “Transmitter preprocessing aided modulation for multipleinput multiple-output systems,” in Proc. IEEE VTC, pp. 1-5, Spring 2011.
M. Mohaisen, “A Review of Fixed-Complexity Vector Perturbation for
MU-MIMO,” Journal of Information Processing Systems, vol. 11, no. 3,
pp. 354-369, 2015.
A. Tulino and S. Verdu, Random Matrix Theory and Wireless Communications. Delft, The Netherlands: Now, 2004.
E. Telatar, “capacity of multi antenna gaussian channels,” European transactions on telecommunications, vol. 10, no. 6, pp. 585-595, 1999.
X. Ge, H. Cheng, M. Guizani, abd T. Han, “5G wireless backhaul networks: Challenges and research advances,” IEEE Networks, vol. 28, no. 6,
pp. 6-11, Dec. 2014.
M. de Berg, O. Cheong, M. van Kreveld, and M. Overmars, Computational Geometry: Algorithms and Applications, 3rd ed. Berlin, Germany:
Springer, 2008.
A. Mehana and A. Nosratinia, “Diversity of MIMO linear precoding,”
IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 60, no. 2, pp. 1019-1038,
Feb. 2014.
M. Mohaisen and K.-H. Chang, “On the achievable improvement by the
linear minimum mean square error detector,” in Proc. ISCIT 2009, pp.
770-774, 2009.

