Data Communications Principles pp 465-516 | Cite as
Optimum Data Transmission
Abstract
In Chapter 4, we examined signal design for baseband pulse transmission, and described the compromises among the bandwidth of the transmitted signal, noise immunity, and mitigation of intersymbol interference inherent in any design. Peak and mean-square intersymbol interference were defined, and it was shown how linear channel distortion can degrade performance. This chapter describes system structures that are optimum, either with respect to maximizing the probability that a sequence of symbols is correctly received or minimizing the output mean-square error; these receivers are primarily designed to correct the degradation caused by noisy channels and linear distortion. It is not possible, except in certain singular cases, to achieve the performance of an impairment-free system, or that of a system which attains the matched filter bound (which is equivalent to the transmission of isolated pulses). A further limitation discussed in Chapter 2 was the assumption of pulse-by-pulse (i.e. symbol-by-symbol) detection, which is optimum only in the absence of intersymbol interference. In the case of partial response signaling, we described precoding operations that eliminated the intentional intersymbol interference, but with a penalty in noise immunity. This penalty can be avoided if pulse-by-pulse detection is replaced by a process (the maximum likelihood receiver) that uses the entire received sequence for detection. This technique, the Viterbi algorithm, was applied to the decoding of convolutional codes in Chapter 3 and to the decoding of trellis codes in Chapter 5. In this chapter, the same technique will be applied to the detection of a sequence of amplitude-modulated pulses.
Keywords
Matched Filter Convolutional Code Viterbi Algorithm Intersymbol Interference Decision Feedback EqualizerPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
- [1]G. D. Forney, Jr., “Maximum Likelihood Sequence Estimation of Digital Sequences in the Presence of Intersymbol Interference,” IEEE Trans. on Information Theory, Vol. IT-18, pp. 363–378, May 1972.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- [2]G. Ungerboeck, “Adaptive Maximum Likelihood Receiver for Carrier Modulated Data Transmission Systems,” IEEE Trans. on Comm., Vol. COM-22, No. 5, pp. 624–636, May 1974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- [3]J. F. Hayes, “The Viterbi Algorithm Applied to Digital Data Transmission,” IEEE Communications Society Magazine, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 5-16, March 1975, reprinted in IEEE Communications Society’s Tutorials in Modern Communications, Computer Science Press, 1983.Google Scholar
- [4]R. W. Lucky, J. Salz, and E. J. Weldon, Jr., Principles of Data Communications, McGraw-Hill, 1968.Google Scholar
- [5]J. G. Proakis, Digital Communications, McGraw-Hill, 1983.Google Scholar
- [6]F. L. Vermeulen and M. E. Hellman, “Reduced State Viterbi Decoder for Channels with Intersymbol Interference,” 1974 International Conference on Communications Conf. Record, pp. 37B1–37B4.Google Scholar
- [7]D. D. Falconer and F. R. Magee, Jr., “Adaptive Channel Memory Truncation for Maximum Likelihood Sequence Estimation,” Bell System Tech. J., Vol. 52, No. 9, pp. 1541–1562, Nov. 1973.MATHGoogle Scholar
- [8]G. D. Forney, Jr., “The Viterbi Algorithm,” IEEE Proc, Vol. 61, No. 3, pp. 268–278, March 1973.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- [9]G. J. Foschini, R. D. Gitlin, and J. Salz, “Optimum Direct Detection for Digital Fiber Optic Communication Systems,” Bell System Tech. J., Vol. 54, No. 8, pp. 1389–1430, Oct. 1975.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
- [10]L. R. Rabiner and B. H. Juang, “An Introduction to Hidden Markov Models,” IEEE ASSP Magazine, pp. 4-16, January 1986.Google Scholar
- [11]E. Ayanoglu and R. M. Gray, “The Design of Joint Source and Channel Trellis Waveform Encoders,” IEEE Trans on Information Theory, Vol. IT-33, No. 6, pp. 855–865, November 1987.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- [12]J. F. Hayes, T. M. Cover and J. B. Riera, “Optimum Sequence Detection and Optimum Symbol-by-Symbol Detection: Similar Algorithms,” IEEE Trans. on Communications, Vol. COM-30, No. 1, pp. 152–157, Jan. 1982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- [13]G. D. Forney, Jr., “Lower Bounds on Error Probability in the Presence of Large Intersymbol Interference,” IEEE Trans. on Communications, Vol. COM-20, pp. 76–77, Feb. 1972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- [14]G. J. Foschini, “A Reduced State Variant of Maximum Likelihood Sequence Detection Attaining Optimum Performance for High Signal-to-Noise Ratios,” IEEE Trans. on Information Theory, Vol. IT-23, No. 5, pp. 605–609, Sept. 1977.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- [15]J. Salz, “Optimum Mean Square Decision Feedback Equalization,” Bell System Tech. J., Vol. 53, No. 8, pp. 1341–1373, Oct. 1973.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
- [16]R. Price, “Nonlinearly Feedback Equalized PAM Versus Capacity, for Noisy Filter Channels,” in Conf. Rec., Int. Conf. Commun., Philadelphia, PA, June 1972.Google Scholar
- [17]D. L. Duttweiler, J. E. Mazo, and D. G. Messerschmitt, “An Upper Bound on the Error Probability in Decision Feedback Equalization,” IEEE Trans. on Information Theory, Vol. IT-20, No. 4, pp. 490–497, July 1974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- [18]M. Tomlinson, “New Automatic Equalizer Employing Modulo Arithmetic,” Electron, Lett., Vol. 7, pp. 138–139, March 1971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- [19]J. E. Mazo and J. Salz, “On The Transmitted Power in Generalized Partial Response,” IEEE Trans. on Communications, Vol. COM-24, No. 3, pp. 348–352, March 1976.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- [20]T. Ericson, “Structure of Optimum Receiving Filters in Data Transmission Systems,” IEEE Trans. on Information Theory, Vol. IT-17, pp. 352–353.Google Scholar
- [21]G. D. Forney, Jr. and M. V. Eyuboglu, “Combined Equalization and Coding Using Precoding,” IEEE Communications Magazine, Vol. 30, No. 12, pp. 25–35, December 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar