0

Symbol Error Probability and Bit Error

Probability for Optimum Combining with
MPSK Modulation
Debang Lao and Alexander M. Haimovich
Corresponding Address:
Alexander M. Haimovich
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering
New Jersey Institute of Technology
Newark, New Jersey 07102, USA
Tel: (973) 596-3534 Fax: (973) 596-8473
E-mail: haimovic@njit.edu
This work was supported by AFOSR Grant F49620-00-1-0107 and New Jersey Center for Wireless Telecommunications.
January 28, 2004 FINAL
1
Abstract
New expressions are derived for the exact symbol error probability and bit error probability for
OC with multiple phase-shift keying. The expressions are for any numbers of equal power co-channel
interferers and receive branches. It is assumed that the aggregate interference and noise is Gaussian and
that both the desired signal and interference are subject to at Rayleigh fading. The new expressions
have low computational complexity as they contain only a single integral form with nite limits and
nite integrand.
Index Terms
Receive diversity, optimumcombining, interference suppression, fading channels, error probability
performance.
I. INTRODUCTION
Optimumcombining (OC) is a well-known method to combat fading and suppress co-channel
interference in wireless communication systems with receive diversity. It combines the out-
puts of the receive branches in an optimum way and achieves the maximum output signal-to-
interference plus noise ratio (SINR).
Performance analysis of OC has been an active research area. Analysis for the case of a single
interference source with binary phase-shift keying (BPSK) modulation can be found in [1], [2]
and [3]. The performance of systems with more than one interferer has been studied extensively
through the use of Monte Carlo simulations [1], upper bounds [4], approximate expressions
[5], and exact expressions with integral forms [6], [7]. Closed-form expressions of BEP for the
number of interferers no less than the number of receive branches and negligible thermal noise
with BPSK modulation were developed in [8]. For arbitrary numbers of interferers and receive
branches, closed-form expressions of BEP were derived in [9] and [10] for BPSK modulation.
An expression for symbol error probability (SEP) for multiple phase-shift keying (M-PSK)
was derived in [7]. The expression was exact and it applied to any number of interferers and
receive branches. It involved multiple-fold integration. A simpler and elegant SEP expression
was derived in recent work [11] for the same case. The expression contained integration over an
integrand, which included the incomplete Gamma function, itself an integral form.
In this paper, we derive expressions for both SEP and BEP for M-PSK, with any number of
receive branches and interferers. The expressions involve only a single integration over elemen-
January 28, 2004 FINAL
2
tary functions. With these expressions, it takes much less time to evaluate the SEP and BEP than
it would take to carry out Monte Carlo simulations or to evaluate multiple-fold integrals.
The paper is organized as follows. Following the system model in Section II, we develop
the expressions for SEP and BEP in Section III. Numerical results are shown in Section IV and
nally, conclusions are drawn in Section V.
II. SYSTEM MODEL
Consider a wireless communication system with N independent receive branches and L + 1
users. Of the users, one is the desired user and it transmits signals with power P
s
. The other
L sources are considered interference sources. Assuming perfect carrier demodulation and syn-
chronization, the sampled output of the matched lter for the j-th branch is
r
j
=
_
P
s
c
j
s +
L

i=1
_
P
I
c
i,j
s
i
+n
j
, j = 1, 2, , N, (1)
where c
j
and s are respectively, the channel gain and M-PSK symbol of the desired user; c
i,j
and s
i
are respectively, the i-th interferers channel gain and symbol; P
I
is the interference
power (assumed equal for all interference sources). The termn
j
represents additive white Gaus-
sian noise (AWGN). The channel gains c
j
and c
i,j
are assumed to be independently and identi-
cally distributed (i.i.d.), zero-mean, circularly symmetric, complex Gaussian random variables
(Rayleigh fading), with variance 1/2 per dimension. The signal model in vector notation is
r =
_
P
s
cs +
_
P
I
L

i=1
c
i
s
i
+ n, (2)
where r = [r
1
, r
2
, , r
N
]
T
, c, c
i
and n are dened similarly, and the superscript T denotes
vector transposition.
Dene the interference plus noise vector as z =

P
I

L
i=1
c
i
s
i
+n. Assume the interference
signal s
i
is Gaussian distributed with zero-mean and unit variance. Then conditioned on the
vectors c
i
s, z has a multivariate complex-Gaussian distribution with zero-mean and covariance
matrix
R = E
_
zz
H

= P
I
L

i=1
c
i
c
H
i
+
2
I
N
, (3)
where the superscript H denotes the Hermitian transposition,
2
is the power of the additive
white Gaussian noise, and I
N
is an identity matrix of rank N.
January 28, 2004 FINAL
3
Dene N
max
= max(N, L) and N
min
= min(N, L) . We sort the N eigenvalues of the inter-
ference plus noise covariance matrix R in descending order as
1

2

N

2
. It
is well known that
i
=
2
for i = N
min
+ 1, N
min
+ 2, , N. For notational convenience, we
denote the other N
min
non-trivial eigenvalues as = [
1
,
2
, ,
N
min
]
T
. The joint probability
density function of the N
min
random eigenvalues is [7]
p

() = K
0
_
N
min

i=1
exp
_

2
P
I
__

2
P
I
_
NmaxN
min
__

1i<jN
min
(
i

j
)
2
_
(4)
for >
1

2

N
min

2
, where
K
0
=
1

N
min
i=1
(N
max
i)!

N
min
i=1
(N
min
i)!
1
P
N
2
min
I
. (5)
With the OC detector, the received signal vector r is weighted and combined to obtain the
output signal. The weight vector that yields the maximum SINR is ([1], [12]) w = R
1
c. The
output of the combiner is
w
H
r =
_
P
s
c
H
R
1
cs + c
H
R
1
z. (6)
The rst term

P
s
c
H
R
1
cs corresponds to the desired signal, while the second term c
H
R
1
z
corresponds to interference plus noise. The latter is Gaussian distributed conditioned on the
channel vectors c and c
i
. The signal model of (6) is similar to that of an AWGN channel with
noise variance E
s
i
,n
_

c
H
R
1
z

2
_
, with the expectation taken over the interfering signal s
i
and
AWGN n. The instantaneous output SINR
t
is

t
= P
s
c
H
R
1
c. (7)
III. EXPRESSIONS FOR SEP AND BEP
In this and the next section, we carry out the theoretical analysis of the SEP and BEP for
OC with M-PSK modulation in the presence of any number of interference sources and receive
branches when both the desired signal and interference are subject to Rayleigh fading.
A. Expression for SEP
For M-PSK, the SEP conditioned on the output SINR
t
can be written as [12, Eq. (8.22)]
P
sym
(E|
t
) =
1

_
(M1)/M
0
exp
_

t
sin
2
(/M)
sin
2

_
d, (8)
January 28, 2004 FINAL
4
where M is the number of symbols of the M-PSK modulation. The SEP is conditioned on
channel realizations through
t
. In order to get the ensemble average SEP P
sym
(E) for OC, we
need to average P
sym
(E|
t
) over the distribution of
t
,
P
sym
(E) =
_

0
P
sym
(E|
t
) p
t
(
t
) d
t
, (9)
where p
t
(
t
) is the probability density function (PDF) of the SINR
t
. Let p
t|
(
t
|) repre-
sent the PDF of
t
conditioned on the non-trivial eigenvalues = [
1
,
2
, ,
N
min
]. The PDF
p
t
(
t
) can be obtained by averaging p
t|
(
t
|) over :
p
t
(
t
) =
_

_
p
t|
(
t
|) p

()d. (10)
Since is a vector, the above integration is multiple-fold.
Substituting (8) and (10) in (9), after some manipulations similar to those in [12], we have
P
sym
(E) =
1

_

_
_
_
(M1)/M
0
M
t|
_

sin
2
(/M)
sin
2

_
d
_
p

()d, (11)
where M
t|
() is the moment generating function (MGF) of the SINR
t
conditioned on eigen-
values . For the Rayleigh fading channel, the MGF given by [12, Eq. 10.52] for L < N can be
generalized easily to any numbers of L and N as
M
t|
(s) =
_
1
1
Ps

2
s
_
NN
min
N
min

i=1
1
1
Ps

i
s
. (12)
B. Expression for BEP
The expressions of BEP for M-PSK modulation with Gray code bit mapping over AWGN
channel can be found in ([13], [12, Eq. (8.30)]). Fromthese expression for AWGN, and similarly
to the derivations from (8) to (11), we can obtain the BEP for OC as
P
bit
(E) =
_

_
P
0
M = 2
1
2
(P
1
+ 2P
2
+P
3
) M = 4
1
3
(P
1
+ 2P
2
+P
3
+ 2P
4
+ 3P
5
+ 2P
6
+P
7
) M = 8
1
2
_
8
k=1
P
k
+

5
k=2
P
k
+P
5
+ 2P
6
+P
7
_
M = 16
, (13)
where
P
k
=
1
2
C
_
[1 (2k 1)/M] , sin
2
[(2k 1) /M]
_
January 28, 2004 FINAL
5

1
2
C
_
[1 (2k + 1)/M] , sin
2
[(2k + 1) /M]
_
, (14)
and
C (, ) =
1

_

_ __

0
M
t|
_

sin
2

_
d
_
p

() d. (15)
Note that the SEP in (11) can be expressed as
P
sym
(E) = C
_
(M 1) /M, sin
2
(/M)
_
. (16)
In Appendix A we show that C (, ) can be evaluated as
C (, ) =
_
1

_
N
min
1
N
min
1

p=0
_

_
p
N
min
1

q=0
(1)
N
min
1+q
H
p,q

q
, (17)
where = P
s
/
2
is the symbol signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), and = P
s
/P
I
is the signal-to-
interference ratio (SIR); H
p,q
and
q
are dened below:
H
p,q
is a sequence indexed by p and q. For 0 p, q N
min
1,
H
p,q
=
1
_

N
min
i=1
(N
max
i)!
_ _

N
min
i=1
(N
min
i)!
_

m
1
++m
N
min
1
=N
min
1p
m
i
{0,1}

n
1
++n
N
min
1
=N
min
1q
n
i
{0,1}
det W, (18)
where for N
min
= 1, det W =1; for N
min
> 1, det W is the determinant of an (N
min
1)
(N
min
1) matrix whose i-th row and j-th column element is
W
i,j
= (N
max
N
min
+m
j
+n
j
+i +j 2)!.

q
is a sequence given by

q
=
N
min

k=0
_
_
N
k
_
_
(
1
)
k
_
N
min
k

i=1
F
N
min
ki
X
q,i1
+Y
q,N
min
k
_
+
N

k=N
min
+1
_
_
N
k
_
_
(
1
)
k
_

kN
min
1

i=0
G
kN
min
i
X
q,(i+1)
+Y
q,N
min
k
_
, (19)
where
1
= . Other terms (F, X, Y and G) in (19) are dened as (m is an integer)
F
m
=
1

l=0
_
_
m
l
_
_

ml
1
January 28, 2004 FINAL
6

_
_
1
2
2l
_
_
2l
l
_
_
+
(1)
l
2
2l1
l1

k=0
(1)
k
_
_
2l
k
_
_
sin (2l 2k)
2l 2k
_
_
(20)
X
q,m
=
m
1
N
min
1m

l=0
_
_
N
min
1 m
l
_
_
_

_
l
(N
max
+q l 1)! (21)
Y
q,m
=
1

m
1
_
1

_
2
0
_
tg +

_
N
min
m
_
tg + +

arctg
_

_
tg + +

_
tg
_
exp (tg) (tg)
NmaxN
min
+q+m
sec
2
d (22)
G
m
=
1

m
1
1
_
1 +
1
1
_
m
1
2
m1

l=0
_
_
m1
l
_
_
_
_
2l
l
_
_
_

1
1
4
_
l

_
tg
1
_
_
1 +
1
1
tg
_
+
_
1 +
1
1
tg
2

j=1
4
j
_
_
2j
j
_
_
j
_
1 +
_
1 +
1
1
_
tg
2

_
j
_

_
. (23)
By inspection of the terms that make up C (, ) in (17), it follows that the integration in (22)
is the only one required to evaluate C (, ). With (16) and (17), we can calculate the SEP. With
(13), (14) and (17), we can calculate the BEP. Although (17) and the related expressions appear
involved, they consist of elementary functions and a single integral form, which can be readily
computed numerically using Matlab or similar software.
These expressions are exact. But since the calculation of Y
q,m
in (22) involves integration, the
actual accuracy of the nal result will depend on the accuracy of the numerical integration.
IV. NUMERICAL RESULTS
In this section, we use numerical results to demonstrate the new exact SEP and BEP ex-
pressions. To facilitate the comparison, in all gures we represent both simulation results and
analysis results. Analytical results were calculated using (16) (for SEP) and (13) (for BEP) and
related expressions such as (14) and (17).
January 28, 2004 FINAL
7
Fig. 1 shows the SEP versus symbol SNR = P
s
/
2
for N = 6 branches, L = 4 interferers,
and SIR = P
s
/P
I
= 10 dB. Fig. 2 shows the BEP versus the number of receive branches N
for L = 4 interferers, bit SNR = 10 dB, and SIR = 15 dB. We can see log
10
(BEP) decreases
linearly as the number of receive branches increases. In both gures, the interference signal s
i
is generated as Gaussian distributed as assumed in Section II. It can be observed that analysis
results match simulation results.
Fig. 3 shows BEP versus SIR for N = 4 branches, various numbers of interferers, and SNR
= 10 dB. Both the desired signal and the interference signal are quadrature phase-shift keying
(QPSK) symbols. It shows that though the interference signal is not Gaussian distributed, the
analysis results are still very close to simulation results regardless of the number of interferers
and the SIR levels. Similar conclusion was drawn in [10].
V. CONCLUSIONS
In this paper, we derived expressions of the exact SEP and BEP for OC with M-PSK modu-
lation over a diversity channel with Rayleigh fading, with any number of diversity branches and
interference sources. The interference sources were assumed to have equal power and the Gaus-
sian assumption was invoked for the aggregate of interference plus noise. The computational
complexity of the new expressions is relatively low as they contain only a single integration
form. The theoretical results in the paper are amply demonstrated by simulations.
APPENDIX A
EVALUATION OF C (, )
In this appendix, we evaluate C (, ) dened in (15) to prove the relation in (17). We will
present the procedure of the derivation but omit some details.
We start by substituting (12) in (15),
C (, ) =
1

_

_
_
_

0
_
sin
2

sin
2
+
_
NN
min
_
N
min

i=1
_
sin
2

sin
2
+
Ps

i
__
d
_
p

() d,
(24)
where = P
s
/
2
is the symbol SNR. The direct evaluation of (24) is computationally inten-
sive even for small N
min
since it involves a (N
min
+ 1)-fold integration. We will show that an
expression for C (, ) can be obtained which involves only a single integration form.
January 28, 2004 FINAL
8
Converting the product in (24) into a summation, we have
C (, ) =
N
min

n=1
1

_

_
_
_

0
A
n
()
_
sin
2

sin
2
+
_
NN
min
_
sin
2

_
N
min
sin
2
+
Ps
n
d
_
p

() d
(25)
where
A
n
() =

N
min
2
n

N
min
i=1

i
(P
s
)
N
min
1
n1

i=1
_
1

i
_
N
min

i=n+1
_
1

i
_
. (26)
Starting with (25) and following similar procedure detailed in [10] and [9], we can express
C (, ) as
C (, ) =
_
1

_
N
min
1 N
min
1

p=0
_

_
p N
min
1

q=0
(1)
N
min
1+q
H
p,q

q
, (27)
where = P
s
/P
I
is the signal-to-interference ratio (SIR), H
p,q
is dened by (18). And
q
is a
sequence dened by

q
=
_

0
D(z
N
min
) f
q
(z
N
min
) dz
N
min
, (28)
where
D(z
N
min
) =
1

_

0
_
sin
2

sin
2
+
1
_
NN
min
_
sin
2

_
N
min
sin
2
+
2
d (29)

1
= (30)

2
=
P
s
P
I
z
N
min
+
2
(31)
f
q
(z
N
min
) = z
NmaxN
min
+q
N
min
_
z
N
min
+

2
P
I
_
N
min
1
e
z
N
min
. (32)
A. Evaluation of D(z
N
min
)
We rst evaluate D(z
N
min
), which involves the integration over variable . We want to express
D(z
N
min
) without integration.
From (29),
D(z
N
min
) =
1

_

0
_
sin
2
+
1

1
_
N
_
sin
2
+
1
_
NN
min
1
sin
2
+
2
d. (33)
Using the binomial expansion, we get
D(z
N
min
) =
N

k=0
_
_
N
k
_
_
(
1
)
k
1

_

0
1
sin
2
+
2
_
sin
2
+
1
_
N
min
k
d. (34)
January 28, 2004 FINAL
9
Separate the summation into two parts according to whether N
min
k is non-negative or negative.
Then
D(z
N
min
) =
N
min

k=0
_
_
N
k
_
_
(
1
)
k
E
N
min
k
(
1
,
2
) +
N

k=N
min
+1
_
_
N
k
_
_
(
1
)
k
U
kN
min
(
1
,
2
) ,
(35)
where
E
m
(
1
,
2
) =
1

_

0
1
sin
2
+
2
_
sin
2
+
1
_
m
d (36)
U
m
(
1
,
2
) =
1

_

0
1
sin
2
+
2
1
_
sin
2
+
1
_
m
d. (37)
1) Evaluation of E
m
(
1
,
2
): For m = 0,
E
0
(
2
) =
1

_

0
1
sin
2
+
2
d
=
1

1
_

2
(
2
+ 1)
arctg
_

2
+ 1

2
tg
_
, (38)
where we use the result from [14, Eq. 2.562]. For m 1, it can be shown that
E
m
(
1
,
2
) = F
m1
(
1
) + (
1

2
) E
m1
(
1
,
2
) , (39)
where
F
m
(
1
) =
1

_

0
_
sin
2
+
1
_
m
d. (40)
Using the binomial expansion and [14, Eq. 2.513.1], we obtain the expression for F
m
(
1
) shown
in (20). Expanding (39) further, we have
E
m
(
1
,
2
) =
m

i=1
(
1

2
)
i1
F
mi
(
1
) + (
1

2
)
m
E
0
(
2
) , (41)
which shows E
m
(
1
,
2
) can be evaluated from F
mi
(
1
) and E
0
(
2
) .
2) Evaluation of U
m
(
1
,
2
): Similarly to the evaluation of E
m
(
1
,
2
) , we have
U
m
(
1
,
2
) =
m1

i=0
_
1

2
_
i+1
G
mi
(
1
) +
_
1

2
_
m
E
0
(
2
) , (42)
where
G
m
(
1
) =
1

_

0
1
_
sin
2
+
1
_
m
d. (43)
Using Eq. (29) and (40) in [15], we get the expression for G
m
(
1
) shown in (23).
January 28, 2004 FINAL
10
3) Summary for D(z
N
min
): Substituting (41) and (42) in (35), we obtain the expression for
D(z
N
min
) as
D(z
N
min
) =
N
min

k=0
_
_
N
k
_
_
(
1
)
k
_
N
min
k

i=1
(
1

2
)
i1
F
N
min
ki
(
1
) + (
1

2
)
N
min
k
E
0
(
2
)
_
+
N

k=N
min
+1
_
_
N
k
_
_
(
1
)
k
_

kN
min
1

i=0
_
1

2
_
i+1
G
kN
min
i
(
1
)
+
_
1

2
_
kN
min
E
0
(
2
)
_
, (44)
which does not contain any integral forms.
B. Evaluation of
q
Substitute (44) into (28), then

q
=
N
min

k=0
_
_
N
k
_
_
(
1
)
k
_
N
min
k

i=1
F
N
min
ki
(
1
)
_

0
(
1

2
)
i1
f
q
(z
N
min
) dz
N
min
+
_

0
(
1

2
)
N
min
k
E
0
(
2
) f
q
(z
N
min
) dz
N
min
_
+
N

k=N
min
+1
_
_
N
k
_
_
(
1
)
k

kN
min
1

i=0
G
kN
min
i
(
1
)
_

0
_
1

2
_
i+1
f
q
(z
N
min
) dz
N
min
+
_

0
_
1

2
_
kN
min
E
0
(
2
) f
q
(z
N
min
) dz
N
min
_
. (45)
Substituting f
q
(z
N
min
) (from (32)), E
0
(
2
) (from (38)) and
2
(from (31)) into (45), after some
straightforward manipulations, we obtain
q
as shown in (19).
REFERENCES
[1] J. H. Winters, Optimum combining in digital mobile radio with cochannel interference, IEEE Transactions on Vehicular
Technology, vol. 33, pp. 144155, August 1984.
[2] A. Shah, A. M. Haimovich, M. K. Simon, and M.-S. Alouini, Exact bit-error probability for optimum combining with
a Rayleigh fading Gaussian cochannel interference, IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 48, pp. 908912, June
2000.
[3] V. A. Aalo and J. Zhang, Performance of antenna array systems with optimum combining in a Rayleigh fading environ-
ment, IEEE Communications Letters, vol. 4, pp. 125127, April 2000.
January 28, 2004 FINAL
11
[4] J. H. Winters and J. Salz, Upper bounds on the bit-error rate of optimum combining in wireless systems, IEEE Transac-
tions on Communications, vol. 46, pp. 16191624, December 1998.
[5] E. Villier, Performance analysis of optimum combining with multiple interferes in at Rayleigh fading, IEEE Transac-
tions on Communications, vol. 47, pp. 15031510, October 1999.
[6] J. Cui, D. D. Falconer, and A. U. Sheikh, Analysis of BER for optimum combining with two co-channel interferers and
maximal ratio combining with arbitrary number of interferers, Proc. IEEE Int. Symp. Personal indoor Mobil Commun.
(PIMRC96), pp. 5357, October 1996.
[7] M. Chiani, M. Z. Win, A. Zanella, and J. H. Winters, Exact symbol error probability for optimum combining in the
presence of multiple co-channel interferers and thermal noise, Global Telecommunications Conference, vol. 2, pp. 1182
1186, 2001.
[8] A. Shah and A. M. Haimovich, Performance analysis of optimum combining in wireless communications with Rayleigh
fading and cochannel interference, IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 46, pp. 473479, April 1998.
[9] R.K. Mallik, M. Z. Win, and M. Chiani, Exact analysis of optimum combining in interference and noise over a Rayleigh
fading channel, IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC 02), vol. 3, pp. 19541958, April 2002.
[10] D. Lao and A. Haimovich, Exact closed-form performance analysis of optimum combining with multiple co-channel
interferers and Rayleigh fading, IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 51, pp. 9951003, June 2003.
[11] M. Z. Win, M. Chiani, and A. Zanella, An analytical frame work for the performance evaluation of optimum combining
for M-ary signals, Proceedings of the 2002 Conference on Information Sciences and Systems, Princeton University, NJ,
2002.
[12] M. K. Simon and M.-S. Alouini, Digital Communication over Fading Channel: A Unied Approach to Performance
Analysis. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, 2000.
[13] P. J. Lee, Computation of the bit error rate for coherent M-ary PSK with Gray code bit mapping, IEEE Transactions on
Communications, pp. 488491, May 1986.
[14] I. S. Gradshteyn and I. M. Ryzhik, Table of Integrals, Series, and Products. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 1994.
[15] M. Z. Win, R. K. Mallik, G. Chrisikos, and J. H. Winters, Canonical expressions for the error probability performance
of M-ary modulation with hybrid selection/maximal-ratio combining in Rayleigh fading, IEEE Wireless Communications
and Networking Conference, vol. 1, pp. 266270, 1999.
January 28, 2004 FINAL
12
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
10
6
10
5
10
4
10
3
10
2
10
1
10
0
Symbol SNR (dB)
S
E
P
16PSK (Analysis)
16PSK (Simulation)
8PSK (Analysis)
8PSK (Simulation)
QPSK (Analysis)
QPSK (Simulation)
BPSK (Analysis)
BPSK (Simulation)
Fig. 1. SEP versus symbol SNR for N = 6 branches, L = 4 interferers, and SIR = 10 dB.
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
10
5
10
4
10
3
10
2
10
1
10
0
N (Number of branches)
B
E
P
16PSK (Analysis)
16PSK (Simulation)
8PSK (Analysis)
8PSK (Simulation)
QPSK (Analysis)
QPSK (Simulation)
BPSK (Analysis)
BPSK (Simulation)
Fig. 2. BEP versus the number of receive branches N, L = 4 interferers, bit SNR = 10 dB, and SIR = 15 dB.
January 28, 2004 FINAL
13
10 5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
10
5
10
4
10
3
10
2
10
1
10
0
SIR (dB)
B
E
P
L=4 (Analysis)
L=4 (Simulation)
L=3 (Analysis)
L=3 (Simulation)
L=2 (Analysis)
L=2 (Simulation)
L=1 (Analysis)
L=1 (Simulation)
Fig. 3. BEP versus SIR for QPSK modulation, N = 4 branches, and SNR = 10 dB.
January 28, 2004 FINAL