and should
account for three mechanisms:
the spatial correlation arising from the nite spacing
between the antennas (if dualpolarized antennas are co
located, this correlation is equal to one),
the gain imbalance between the various co and cross
polar components,
the (de)correlation between all pairs of co and cross
polar antennas arising only from the polarization differ
ence (i.e. for colocated dualpolarized antennas).
A. DualPolarized Rayleigh Channels
In a rst approach [9], [10], H
is decomposed by isolating
the impact of depolarization on the channel gains, yielding
H
, (1)
where
45
 =
_
1
1
_
. (2)
where is the global realvalued depolarization factor (0 <
< 1) for a slantedtoslanted scheme. What is important
to notice is that H
= HX. (3)
In (3), H is modeled as a unipolarized correlated Rayleigh
channel, while X models both the correlation and power
imbalance impacts of scatteringinduced depolarization. It is
important to stress that X only models the power imbalance
and the phaseshifts between the four channels, but does
not contain fading. Normalized fading (i.e. with unit average
power) is entirely modeled by H.
A practical model of H [11] relies on the transmit and
receive correlation matrices,
t
and
r
, and is given by
H =
1/2
r
H
w
1/2
t
, (4)
where H
w
is the classical i.i.d. complex Gaussian matrix.
A relatively general model of the channel matrix for VH
toVH downlink transmission [12] is given by
vec
_
X
H
VHVH
_
=
_
_
1
_
1/2
vec
_
X
H
w
_
, (5)
where
and represent respectively the copolar imbalance and
the scattering XPD, and are assumed to be constant,
and are the receive and transmit correlation coef
cients (i.e. the correlation coefcients between VV and
HV, HH and HV, VV and VH or HH and VH),
1
and
2
are the crosschannel correlation coefcients
caused by the use of orthogonal polarizations, i.e.
1
is
the correlation between the VV and the HH components,
and
2
is the correlation between the VH and the HV
components (both are typically low, see [8]),
X
w
is a 22 matrix whose four elements are independent
circularly symmetric complex exponentials of unit ampli
tude, e
j
k
, k = 1, . . . , 4, the angles
k
being uniformly
distributed over [0, 2).
In the following, we assume for simplicity that the correlation
coefcients and between any crosspolar component (VH
or HV) and any copolar component (VV or HH) are equal
to zero, although they might actually be slightly higher [8].
Furthermore, if
1
=
2
= 0, we may also write that H
H
w
.
For alternative polarization schemes, the Rayleigh channel
matrix is simply obtained by applying adequate rotations, as
outlined in [12].
B. MultiPolarized Rayleigh Channels
Arbitrary n
r
n
t
schemes (for even values of n
t
and n
r
) are
modeled by considering that the transmit (resp. receive) array
is made of n
t
/2 (resp. n
r
/2) dualpolarized subarrays (each
subarray is identical and is made of two colocated antennas
with orthogonal polarizations). In that case, the transmission
between any transmit subarray to any receive subarray can
be derived from (3) and reads as
H
= hX, (6)
where h is the scalar channel representing the transmission
between the locations of the considered transmit and receive
subarrays (remember that each subarray is made of two co
located orthogonallypolarized antennas). Hence, the global
channel matrix is represented as
H
,n
r
n
t
= H
n
r
/2n
t
/2
X, (7)
where the covariance of H
n
r
/2n
t
/2
is the spatial covariance
related to the spacing between the subarrays, and X is the
2 2 dualpolarized matrix modeled by (5). Again, X only
models the power imbalance and the phaseshifts between the
four dualpolarized channels.
To simplify the analysis of such channels, we assume from
now on that = 1. In that case, it is relatively straightforward
to compute the eigenvalues of XX
H
, given by
1,2
= A
_
A
2
+B, (8)
where
A = 1 + +
2

_
1 
2

2
cos
_
3
+ arg{
2
}
_
+

1

_
1 
1

2
cos
_
4
+ arg{
1
}
_
, (9)
and
B = 2
2

1
 cos
_
2
1
2
2
+ arg{
1
} arg{
2
}
_
+
2

1

_
1 
2

2
cos
_
2
1
3
+ arg{
1
}
_
+ 2
2

_
1 
1

2
cos
_
1
2
2
+
4
arg{
2
}
_
+ 2
2
_
1 
2

2
_
1 
1

2
cos
_
3
+
4
_
2
1

_
1 
1

2
cos
_
4
+ arg{
1
}
_
1
2
2
2

2

_
1 
2
 cos
_
3
+ arg{
2
}
_
. (10)
Note that if
1
=
2
= 0, the eigenvalues simplify into
1,2
= 1 +
_
2(1 + cos ), (11)
where =
1
2
3
+
4
is a random angle uniformly
distributed over [0, 2). These eigenvalues are needed in the
later developments.
III. SINGLE VS. MULTIPLE POLARIZATIONS: MUTUAL
INFORMATION ANALYSIS
A. Problem Statement
We want to compare the mutual information (MI) of two
MIMO systems
using the same numbers of antennas on both sides (n
t
=
n
r
= n),
with uniform linear arrays having the same total length
(denoted by L
t
and L
r
respectively for the transmit and
receive arrays) in both cases.
The rst system is made of unipolarized arrays with n equi
spaced antennas whereas for the second system the Tx and Rx
arrays are made of n/2 dualpolarized equispaced subarrays
(each subarray is identical and is made of two colocated
antennas with orthogonal polarizations).
Because we use the total length as a constraint, we must
dene a spatial correlation model. In what follows, we simply
assume that the antenna correlation is an exponential function
of the spacings (d
t
and d
r
) [13], hence it is given by e
d
t
/
t
at the Tx side, and e
d
r
/
r
at the Rx side (
t
and
r
are
characteristic distances proportional to the spatial coherence
distance at each side). We further assume that the spatial
correlation is separable (i.e. the Kronecker model may be used)
with the Tx and Rx correlation matrices respectively expressed
as,
t
=
_
_
1 e
d
t
/
t
. . . e
(n1)d
t
/
t
e
d
t
/
t
1 . . . e
(n2)d
t
/
t
.
.
.
.
.
.
e
(n1)d
t
/
t
e
(n2)d
t
/
t
. . . 1
_
_
(12)
r
=
_
_
1 e
d
r
/
r
. . . e
(n1)d
r
/
r
e
d
r
/
r
1 . . . e
(n2)d
r
/
r
.
.
.
.
.
.
e
(n1)d
r
/
r
e
(n2)d
r
/
r
. . . 1
_
_
(13)
Combining all assumptions, it can be shown that the deter
minant of, say,
t
reads as
det
t
=
_
1 e
2d
t
/
t
_
n1
, (14)
=
_
1 e
2L
t
(n1)
t
_
n1
, (15)
where d
t
= L
t
/(n 1) is the element spacing for n antennas
over a length L
t
. The channel matrices therefore read as
for the rst system,
H =
1/2
r
H
w
1/2
t
, (16)
for the second system,
H
1/2
r
H
w
1/2
t
. .
H
X, (17)
Note that
r
, H
w
and
t
are nn matrices, while
r
,
H
w
and
t
are n/2 n/2. It is also interesting to note that
H
H
H
=
H
H
H
XX
H
(18)
B. High SNR Analysis
The mutual information with identity transmit covariance
reads as
I = log
2
det
_
I
n
+
n
HH
H
_
, (19)
where is the SNR. At high SNR, a good approximation is
given by
I log
2
det
_
n
HH
H
_
. (20)
1) UniPolarized Systems: In this case, (20) can be devel
oped as follows:
I log
2
_
_
n
_
n
det
_
HH
H
_
_
, (21)
= nlog
2
_
n
_
+ log
2
det
r
+ log
2
det
t
+ log
2
det
_
H
w
H
H
w
_
(22)
= nlog
2
_
n
_
+ (n 1) log
2
_
1 e
2L
t
(n1)
t
_
+ (n 1) log
2
_
1 e
2L
r
(n1)
r
_
+ log
2
det
_
H
w
H
H
w
_
(23)
The ergodic mutual information is then given by
I = E{I} = nlog
2
_
n
_
+ (n 1) log
2
_
1 e
2L
t
(n1)
t
_
+ (n 1) log
2
_
1 e
2L
r
(n1)
r
_
+
1
log 2
_
n
k=1
nk
l=1
1
l
n
_
, (24)
where 0.57721566 is Eulers constant.
2) MultiPolarized Systems: In the high SNR regime, we
have:
I
log
2
_
_
n
_
n
det
_
H
H
H
_
_
, (25)
which yields I
= nlog
2
_
n
_
+
n
2
log
2
_
2
_
+ 2 log
2
det
_
H
w
H
H
w
_
+ 2
_
n
2
1
_
log
2
_
1 e
4L
t
(n2)
t
_
+ 2
_
n
2
1
_
log
2
_
1 e
4L
r
(n2)
r
_
(26)
The ergodic mutual information is then given by
= E{I
} = nlog
2
_
n
_
+
n
2
E
_
log
2
_
2
_
_
+
2
log 2
_ n/2
k=1
n/2k
l=1
1
l
n
2
_
+ 2
_
n
2
1
_
log
2
_
1 e
4L
t
(n2)
t
_
+ 2
_
n
2
1
_
log
2
_
1 e
4L
r
(n2)
r
_
.(27)
We are now able to calculate the normalized difference
I/n = (
I)/n assuming that n is large, and that
L
t
/
t
= L
r
/
r
. In this case, let us dene = n
t
/L
t
=
n
r
/L
r
, which can be thought of as a normalized antenna
density. This yields
I/n 1 + 2 log
2
_
1 e
4/
1 e
2/
_
+
1
2
E
_
log
2
_
2
_
_
1 + 2 log
2
_
1 e
4/
1 e
2/
_
(28)
where the simplication in (28) is derived from the observa
tion (through simulations) that E
_
log
2
_
2
_
_
/2 is small,
irrespective of , if
1
and
2
are sufciently small (say,
below 0.25, which is usually the case). Interestingly, the
MI difference only depends of . Therefore, dualpolarized
schemes offer higher ergodic MI at high SNR when
I/n
0, i.e. when 2.27.
C. Arbitrary SNR Analysis
At arbitrary SNR, the asymptotic mutual information of uni
polarized spatially correlated channels is wellknown, and can
be calculated using the Stieltjes transform [14]. Alternative
methods can also be used (see [13] as an example). We even
tually obtain that the asymptotic average mutual information
per receive antenna
I/n is given by
I
n
=
1
n
log
2
det(I
n
+
t
r
)+
1
n
log
2
det(I
n
+
r
t
)
1
r
,
(29)
where
t
and
r
are the solutions of
_
_
_
t
=
n
Tr
_
t
_
I
n
+
r
t
_
1
_
r
=
n
Tr
_
r
_
I
n
+
t
r
_
1
_
(30)
and
t
and
r
are diagonal matrices containing the
eigenvalues of
t
and
r
. Both correlation matrices have
the form
=
_
_
_
_
_
1 . . .
n1
1 . . .
n2
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
n1
n2
. . . 1
_
_
_
_
_
, (31)
and it is known (see [15, p. 38]) that the eigenvalue distribution
function of converges uniformly (as n +) to
f(
) =
k=0
k
e
jk
k=1
k
e
jk
(32)
=
1
1 e
j
+
1 e
j
(33)
for
d
r
r
e
j
+
e
d
r
r
t
1 e
d
r
r
e
j
)d
+
_
2
0
log
2
(1 +
r
1 e
d
t
t
e
j
+
e
d
t
r
1 e
d
t
t
e
j
)d
r
, (34)
where
t
=
4e
d
t
t
1 +
_
1 + 8e
d
t
t
e
d
r
r
and
r
=
_
1 + 8e
d
t
t
e
d
r
r
1
2e
d
t
t
are the solutions of
_
t
=
_
2
0
1
1e
d
t
t e
j
+
e
d
t
t
1e
d
t
t e
j
1 +
r
1e
d
t
t e
j
+
r
e
d
t
t
1e
d
t
t e
j
r
=
_
2
0
1
1e
d
r
r e
j
+
e
d
r
r
1e
d
r
r e
j
1 +
t
1e
d
r
r e
j
+
t
e
d
r
r
1e
d
r
r e
j
.
(35)
For dualpolarized schemes, assume rst that the eigen
values of XX
H
are xed. In this case, the n eigenvalues
of H
H
can be expressed as the product of the n/2
eigenvalues of
H
H
H
by
1
and
2
respectively. Hence, we
may decompose the conditional MI per antenna as
1
,
2
=
1
2
_
log
2
_
1+
1
_
p
()d+
1
2
_
log
2
_
1+
2
_
p
()d,
(36)
where designates the eigenvalues of
H
H
H
/n and p
() is
0 5 10 15 20 25
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
SNR (dB)
m
i
n
increasing
Fig. 1. Normalized antenna density
min
above which dualpolarization
should be favored as a function of the SNR ( is the scattering XPD,
1
=
2
= 0).
the limit probability density of when n . The latter can
be quite easily evaluated, e.g. as described in [13]. When
1
and
2
are random, the quantities
1
and
2
can be thought
of as randomly varying effective SNRs. The randomness is
represented by the four phaseshifts
k
, k = 1, . . . , 4 in (9)
and (10), which are uniformly distributed over [0, 2). The
ergodic MI per antenna is nally given by
n
=
1
32
4
_
2
0
. . .
_
2
0
2
k=1
_
_
log
2
_
1 +
k
_
p
() d
_
d
1
d
2
d
3
d
4
(37)
Simulation results are illustrated in Figure 1. The minimum
normalized antenna density
min
for which
I/n 0 is plot
ted for various values of and
1
=
2
= 0.
min
decreases as
the SNR increases, and reaches its asymptotic value of 2.27
at high SNR. The impact of is also pretty intuitive: for
small XPD values, unipolarized schemes remain attractive for
larger densities, as the dualpolarized transmissions are heavily
penalized by the energy loss, especially at low SNR levels. At
low SNR, it is indeed well known that the mutual information
is essentially linked to the channel energy [9].
IV. CONCLUSIONS
This paper has presented a simple model of multipolarized
MIMO transmissions in Rayleigh fading channels, which
combines spatial correlation effects and polarizationrelated
mechanisms. The model has then been exploited to analyze
the mutual information offered by MIMO schemes using either
single, or multiple polarizations. In the high SNR regime, a
closedform criterion has been derived, which depends on a
normalized antenna density. The latter is the product of the
array antenna density by the spatial coherence distance of
the channel. At arbitrary SNR levels, we have proposed a
method to estimate the mutual information, and shown that for
small depolarization, unipolarized schemes remain attractive
for large normalized densities, especially in the low SNR
regime.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work has been carried out while Maxime Guillaud was
with Eurecom Institute. The authors wish to thank the support
of the EU Network of Excellence NEWCOM, of the Belgian
NSF (FNRS  Fonds National de la Recherche Scientique)
and of France Telecom R&D.
REFERENCES
[1] T. Neubauer and P. Egers, Simultaneous characterization of polarization
matrix components in pico cells, in Proc. VTCF 1999  IEEE Vehicular
Technology Conf. Fall, 1999, pp. 13611365.
[2] M.R. Andrews, P.P. Mitra and R. de Carvalho, Tripling the capacity of
wireless communications using electromagnetic polarization, Nature,
vol. 409, pp. 316318, Jan. 2001.
[3] K. Pedersen and P. Mogensen, Simulation of dualpolarized propagation
environments for adaptive antennas, in Proc. VTCF 1999  IEEE
Vehicular Technology Conf. Fall, 1999, pp. 6266.
[4] T. Svantesson, A doublebounce channel model for multipolarized
MIMO systems, in Proc. VTCF 2002  IEEE Vehicular Technology
Conf. Fall, 2002, pp. 691695.
[5] P. Soma, D. Baum, V. Erceg, R. Krishnamoorthy, and A. Paulraj,
Analysis and modeling of multipleinput multipleoutput radio channels
based on outdoor measurements conducted at 2.5 GHz for xed BWA
applications, in Proc. ICC 2002  IEEE Int. Conf. Commun., vol. 1,
New York City, NY, May 2002, pp. 272276.
[6] C. Oestges, V. Erceg, and A. Paulraj, Propagation modeling of multi
polarized MIMO xed wireless channels, IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol.,
vol. 53, no. 3, pp. 644654, May 2004.
[7] M. Sha, M. Zhang, A. Moustakas, P. Smith, A. Molisch, F. Tufvesson,
and S. Simon, Polarized MIMO channels in 3D: models, measurements
and mutual information, IEEE J. Select. Areas Commun., vol. 24, no. 3,
pp. 514527, Mar. 2006.
[8] W. Kotterman, G. Sommerkorn, and R. Thoma, Crosscorrelation
values for dualpolarised indoor MIMO links and realistic antenna
elements, in Proc. 3rd Int. Symp. Wireless Communication Systems,
Valencia, Spain, Sep. 2006.
[9] A. Paulraj, R. Nabar, and D. Gore, Introduction to SpaceTime Wireless
Communications. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
[10] A. Lozano, A. Tulino, and S. Verdu, Multipleantenna capacity in the
lowpower regime, IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory, vol. 49, no. 10, pp.
25272544, Oct. 2003.
[11] C.N. Chuah, J.M. Kahn, and D. Tse. Capacity of multiantenna array
systems in indoor wireless environment. In Proc. Globecom 1998 
IEEE Global Telecommunications Conf., volume 4, pages 18941899,
Sydney, Australia, 1998.
[12] C. Oestges and B. Clerckx, MIMO Wireless Communications: From
RealWorld Propagation to SpaceTime Code Design. Academic Press,
2007.
[13] C. Martin and B. Ottersten, Asymptotic eigenvalue distributions and
capacity for MIMO channels under correlated fading, IEEE Trans.
Wireless Commun., vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 13501359, July 2004.
[14] J. Dumont, P. Loubaton, S. Lasaulce, and M. Debbah, On the asymp
totic performance of MIMO correlated Ricean channels, in Proc.
ICASSP 2005  IEEE Int. Conf. Acoust. Speech and Signal Processing,
pp. 813816.
[15] R. M. Gray, Toeplitz and circulant matrices: A review, Foundations
and Trends in Communications and Information Theory, vol. 2, no. 3,
pp. 155239, 2006.