MISO Broadcasting FBMC System for Highly
Frequency Selective Channels
Michael Newinger∗, Leonardo G. Baltar∗ , A. Lee Swindlehurst†, Josef A. Nossek∗
∗ Institute
for Circuit Theory and Signal Processing
Technische Universität München
80290 München, Germany
{michael.newinger, leo.baltar, josef.a.nossek}@tum.de
Abstract—In this contribution we propose new techniques for
multi-user MISO broadcasting with Filter Bank based Multicarrier
(FBMC) systems. FBMC is a prominent alternative to OFDM
that can achieve higher bandwidth efficiency since no cyclic
prefix is required. However, when extending FBMC to a multi-
antenna system, approaches that are used in OFDM can not be
directly applied due to its special structure and the existence
of inter-carrier and inter-symbol interference. We will consider a
downlink scenario for the transmission from a multi-antenna base
station to several single-antenna mobile stations. To this end, a
Minimum Mean Square Error (MMSE) based multi-tap precoder
and equalizer will be designed. Our method is of particular
interest for highly frequency selective channels.
I. I NTRODUCTION
Multicarrier systems are used in a wide range of current
communication systems such as Wi-Fi, DVB, DSL or LTE.
The most prominent modulation scheme certainly is Orthogo-
nal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM), which can be
efficiently implemented using the Discrete Fourier Transform
(DFT). The problem of frequency selectivity in transmission
channels can be coped with by introducing a cyclic prefix,
restoring orthogonality between subcarriers. This, however,
leads to redundant transmissions and with that to a loss of
spectral efficiency, especially in highly frequency selective
channels. Filter Bank based Multicarrier (FBMC) systems
present an alternative modulation where this disadvantage can
be overcome. Specific pulses that are longer than the symbol
period and well localized in both time and frequency are used
instead of the rectangular pulses in OFDM. A cyclic prefix
is no longer required. The increase of efficiency, however,
comes with the price of higher complexity in transmitter and
receiver design and implementation of a multi-tap equalizer is
now required as opposed to the one-tap equalizer in OFDM.
Further advantages of the more complex design are stronger
stop-band attenuation due to the filter specifications and re-
laxed synchronization requirements compared to OFDM. The
latter is particularly interesting when multi-user systems are
employed.
The majority of recent contributions regarding MIMO
FBMC consider point-to-point communication. In this context
a frequent assumption is that the channel’s frequency response
is approximately flat within one subcarrier and only differs
slightly at adjacent subchannels. For this scenario, the authors
of [1] have proposed a spatial multiplexing scheme for a
system with two transmit and receive antennas (2x2). A
† Department for Electrical Engineering & Computer Science
University of California, Irvine
Irvine, CA 92697, USA
swindle@uci.edu
d0 [m] dˆ0 [m]
d1 [m] AFB dˆ1 [m]
.. SFB Channel ..
. +Eq .
dM−1 [m] dˆM−1 [m]
WGN
Fig. 1. Single user FBMC System
different approach that is not restricted in terms of the numbers
of antennas is presented in [2]. For scenarios where the channel
can no longer be assumed flat, however, different approaches
are required. In [3] an equalizer design is proposed for a SIMO
and MIMO case with no precoding operation at the transmitter.
If the complexity is to be shared between the transmitter and
receiver, a suboptimal linear approach is given in [4] for a joint
transmitter and receiver design while at least one of those is
constrained to be a single-tap filter.
For multi-user systems the number of contributions is fairly
limited. The authors of [5] propose an SDMA approach for
the MISO broadcast channel based on Tomlinson-Harashima
Precoding. However, the proposed technique is again only
valid for channels with high coherence bandwidth. In this
contribution we will devise a new multi-user MISO broad-
casting approach for highly frequency selective channels. We
will propose two different MMSE approaches. In the first one,
we will provide a closed form solution for a system that has all
the complexity at the transmitter side by the use of precoders
only. In the second, we will extend this approach to a joint
transmitter and receiver design by an iterative technique.
The paper is organized as follows: In Section II we will
introduce the system and subchannel model. In Section III the
MMSE-based precoder design will be introduced, followed by
the iterative transmitter and receiver design in Section IV.
Both approaches are evaluated in Section V by numerical
simulations. Finally, conclusions are drawn in Section VI.
II. S YSTEM M ODEL
An abstract model of a single-user SISO FBMC system is
shown in Fig. 1. The M complex valued QAM input signals
dk [m] at a symbol rate of 1/Ts are combined by the Synthesis
Filter Bank (SFB) into one signal at a sampling rate of M/Ts
and transmitted via a frequency selective AWGN channel. On
the receiver side the signals are again separated by the Analysis
Filter Bank (AFB) including an equalization step to account
 xk−1 [n] x
dk−1 [m] Ok−1 M hk−1
2

xk [n] tk [r] x̂k [n]

dˆk [m]
x 
dk [m] Ok M hk hch hk yM gk Ok′
2 2

xk+1 [n] x
dk+1 [m] Ok+1 M hk+1 η[r]
2

Fig. 2. Single user SISO subchannel model

x
M Ts
dk [m] ℜ{•} 2 2 xk [n] Bk
x s1k [n]
M
jℑ{•} 2 b1,1
k

x1k [n] b2,1

Fig. 3. OQAM Staggering for even indexed subcarriers k
..
.

for the channel impairments. Exponentially modulated filters bN

k
t ,1

are commonly used for the design of SFB and AFB to allow an
efficient implementation based on modified DFT filter banks b1,2
k
as shown in [6]. The pulse shaping filters at subcarrier k are s2k [n]
x2k [n] b2,2
therefore given by k
   ..
2π LP − 1 .
hk [r] = hP [r] exp j k r − , r = 0, . . . , LP − 1,
M 2 bN
k
t ,2

where hP [r] is the prototype filter with length LP . For the .. ..

choice of the prototype filter there are different possibilities, . . ..
some of which allow for Perfect Reconstruction (PR) at the .
b1,U
k
receiver, inducing strong constraints on the design parameters.
If, however, we accept near-PR as sufficient, these constraints xU
k [n] b2,U
k
can be relaxed and the prototype filter design can be simplified. ..
It can be argued that, due to channel impairments, PR can .
sN
k [n]
t

only be achieved approximately and the impact of near-PR bN

k
t ,U

prototype filters on the system performance is negligible. A

possible choice for this prototype is a root-raised cosine with
roll-off factor equal to one and LP = KM + 1, with K being
the overlapping factor equal to which indicates the number of
symbols that will overlap in the time domain. This number
should be kept small to limit inter-symbol interference (ISI),
however, a larger K increases the stop-band attenuation. A
consequence of this choice is that there will only be significant
overlap on directly neighbouring subchannels. All interference
into further channels can be neglected.
To limit the complexity of the resulting optimization algo-
rithms we wish to design our system on a per-subcarrier basis.
This motivates the use of a reduced subchannel model that,
due to the choice of prototype filter with roll-off factor one,
only has to consider the input of three overlapping subchannels
to calculate the received signal at subchannel k. This model is
depicted in Fig. 2. The operator Ok corresponds to an offset-
QAM staggering where in even-indexed subchannels the real
part of the QAM symbol input signal dk [m] is delayed by half
of the symbol period. In odd subcarriers the imaginary part is
delayed. This process is illustrated in Fig. 3 for even-indexed
subcarriers. On the receiver side Ok′ reverses this operation.
The offset-QAM staggering is required to get orthogonal
subchannels in the FBMC system [7]. To counteract distortions
induced by the channel we also add the equalizer gk before the
the OQAM de-staggering. An MMSE-based equalizer design
for highly frequency selective channels for this subchannel
model can be found in [8].
Fig. 4. Precoding of U users onto Nt transmit antennas for subchannel k
In the following we will consider the downlink from a
multi-antenna Base Station (BS) with Nt transmit antennas to
U single-antenna Mobile Stations (MS). For this scenario we
will design a SDMA scheme in which each of the U MSs will
receive a different data stream. To extend the above system
we now introduce a multi-tap precoder that performs both
spatial and temporal precoding. To this end, we require one
precoder per user, transmit antenna, and subcarrier, as shown
in Fig. 4. Here, the filter bsk of length B precodes the user
s ∈ {1, . . . , U } for the transmit antenna i ∈ {1, . . . , Nt } on
subchannel k. The signal sik [n] which is transmitted at antenna
i and subchannel k is then given by
U
X
sik [n] = bi,s s
k [n] ∗ xk [n], (1)
s=1
where ∗ denotes linear convolution. The signal sik is the
summation of all precoded input signals for antenna i at one
subcarrier.
As for the single-user case we again require a subchannel
model for the whole transmission. The transmitter side of
this model is shown in Fig. 5. The block Bk comprises the
precoding operation as given in Fig. 4; however, we now need
 SFB1 respectively correspond to the complete channel impulse re-
x1k−1 [n] s1k−1 [n] x
M hk−1 sponse between precoder and equalizer from subchannel l to
x2k−1 [n] s2k−1 [n] 2
k and transmit antenna i to user j downsampled by M/2, and
t1k [r]
.. Bk−1
x
M hk the filtered and downsampled WGN. The length of the filter
. 2
xU
k−1 [n] sN
k−1 [n]
t
in (3a) is given by Q = ⌈2(2(LP − 1) + Lch )/M ⌉ where Lch
x
M
2 hk+1 corresponds to the length of the propagation channel. Note that
by summing up for all l from k−1 to k+1 we have included
SFB2 subcarrier k and its two overlapping neighbours.
x
x1k [n] s1k [n] M hk−1
2
III. MMSE P RECODER DESIGN
x2k [n] s2k [n] x t2k [r]
M hk
.. Bk
2 The objective of this approach is to minimize the Mean
xU
.
sN Square Error (MSE) between the transmitted and received
k [n] k [n]
t x
M hk+1
2 signal by using a precoder only. The equalizers will therefore
.. .. be set to gkj = 1. In the precoder design, we can exploit
. . the offset-QAM structure of the FBMC system. After the
x1k+1 [n] s1k+1 [n] x staggering operation (Ok ), the input sequences xjk [n] have the
M hk−1
2 following structure
x2k+1 [n] s2k+1 [n]
tN
k [r]
t ( T
αjk [m] jβkj [m] αjk [m − 1] · · · , k odd,
x
M hk
.. Bk+1 2 j
. xk [n] =  j T
xU
k+1 [n] sN
k+1 [n] jβk [m] αjk [m] jβkj [m − 1] · · · , k even.
t
x
M hk+1
2
(4)
SFBNt
where αjk [m] and βkj [m] are real numbers. We can conclude
Fig. 5. Precoded transmitter MISO subchannel model for Nt antennas that if the MSE is to be optimized, it is sufficient to limit
our efforts to minimizing the real or imaginary part of the
t1k [r] respective symbol. Since the other part will be discarded in the
h1,j
ch de-staggering process we do not waste degrees of freedom by
t2k [r] attempting to minimize a part of the signal that is irrelevant for
h2,j x̂jk [n]
ch  the detection process. Here, we restrict our notation to a purely
hk yM gkj
..
2 real representation; however, this is equivalent to a complex
. widely linear approach.
tN
k [r]
t
Nt ,j
hch η j [r] In the following we will first assume that the received
symbol in question corresponds to a real-valued symbol α̂jk [m]
Fig. 6. Receiver subchannel model which is given by taking the real part of (2):
k+1
X Nt
U X
X
α̂jk [m] = ℜ{hi,j i,s s j
l,k [n] ∗ bl [n] ∗ xl [n] + η̂k [n]}.
the precoded signals from the three overlapping subchannels. l=k−1 s=1 i=1
For each of the Nt transmit antennas we then have the identical (5)
system of upsamplers and pulse shaping filters as in Fig. 2.
To simplify the optimization process we switch to a matrix-
The signals are finally transmitted via highly frequency se- vector notation. For the output signal this yields
lective fading channels where hi,jch corresponds to the channel k+1 U
between transmit antenna i and user j. On the receiver side,
X X
α̂jk [m] = ℜ{xs,T j s j
l [n]Hk,l bl } + ℜ{Γk η [r]} (6)
the received signal corresponds to the superimposed signals
l=k−1 s=1
from all transmit antennas. After the filtering with hk and
the downsampling we perform an equalization with gkj . This where
h i
process is depicted in Fig. 6. Putting everything into equations, j
Hl,k = 1,j
Hl,k 2,j
Hl,k Nt ,j
. . . Hl,k ∈ CB+Q−1×BNt
our subchannel model is given by
T
bsk = (b1,s (b2,s . . . (bN t ,s T
∈ CBNt (7)

T T
Nt k+1
X X  k ) k ) k )
x̂jk [n] = gkj [n] ∗ hi,j
l,k [n] and Γk performs the downsampling and filtering operation on
i,j
i=1 l=k−1 the noise vector. Hl,k ∈ CB+Q−1×B is a Toeplitz matrix
corresponding to the filtering operation with hi,j
U
!

 l,k . The vector
X
∗ bi,s s
l [n] ∗ xl [n] + η̂kj [n] (2) bsk ∈ CBNt contains all precoders within one subchannel that
s=1
precode user s. The input vector xsk [n] ∈ CB+Q−1 contains
where B + Q − 1 consecutive input samples.
For the MSE minimization we are facing three different
h i
hi,j
l,k [n] = h l [r] ∗ h i,j
ch [r] ∗ h k [r] , (3a)
r=n M
2
kinds of interference: inter-symbol, inter-carrier and inter-user
η̂kj [n] = hk [r] ∗ η j [r] r=n M ,
 
(3b) interference (ISI, ICI and IUI). The overlapping of neighbour-
2 ing subchannels thereby complicates the design process. If the
MSE between the transmitted and the received signal of one the expected value operator yields
user is to be minimized with respect to the precoders of one !
U k+1
specific subchannel, the corresponding data stream will intro- X X
duce ICI in its neighbouring subchannels, in addition to IUI in ξ̂kj = arg min σx2 ξls,T Ψj,T j s s,T j,T
l,k Ψl,k ξl − 2ξl Ψl,k eν
j
ξk s=1 l=k−1
other user’s signals. Therefore, we need to explicitly include
these interferences into our optimization problem yielding XU
+σx2 ξkj,T Φs,T s
k−1,k Φk−1,k ξk
j
h i s=1
b̂jk = arg min E |α̂jk [m] − αjk [m − ν]|2 + |ck |2 + |uk |2 (8)
bjk ,ν + ξkj,T Φs,T s
k+1,k Φk+1,k ξk
j

XU

where ν is the delay of the whole system and ck and uk cor- +σx2 ξkj,T Ψs,T s j
k,k Ψk,k ξk + Rη̂k j,(R) }, (13)
respond to the interference introduced in adjacent subcarriers s=1
s6=j
and interference introduced in other users, respectively, given
by where Rη̂j,(R) corresponds to the covariance matrix of the real
k
part of the noise received at user j. For this result we have
|ck |2 = |ℑ{xj,T j j 2 j,T j j 2
k Hk−1,k bk }| + |ℑ{xk Hk+1,k bk }| assumed that all input signals are independently and identically
U  distributed
X
2
|uk | = |ℑ{xj,T s j 2 j,T s j 2
k Hk−1,k bk }| + |ℜ{xk Hk,k bk }|
i σ 2 I
x B+Q−1 , if s = t and k = l,
h
s=1 E xsk [n]xt,H
l [n] =
s6=j 0B+Q−1 , otherwise,
(14)

+ |ℑ{xj,T
k H s
bj 2
k+1,k k }| . (9)
and σx2 = 0.5σd2 with σd2 being the variance of the QAM
Whenever the interference at the subchannel of interest k is input symbols djk [n] The above expression can be optimized
considered, the real part of the interference is taken. Due to by taking its derivative with respect to bjk and setting it to zero,
alternating structure of the OQAM staggering from subchannel which yields
to subchannel (see Section II), we have to take the imaginary
part if one of the neighbouring subcarriers k±1 is taken into
account. For the simulations in Section V we have used a U
X
fixed delay ν. In general the delay can also be optimized to ξ̂kj = Φs,T s s,T s
k−1,k Φk−1,k + Ψk,k Ψk,k
minimize the MSE. This, however, is beyond the scope of this s=1
contribution. !−1
+ Φs,T s
k+1,k Φk+1,k Ψj,T
k,k eν . (15)
To find linear expressions for the real and imaginary parts
of the interference terms in Eqs. (6) and (9) it is practical to
redefine the input vectors xjk and and channel matrices Hl,k s
The vector eν is a unit vector with a one at position ν which
as follows corresponds to the precoder delay. Simulations have shown that
depending on design parameters such as number of antennas,
xj,T s j j,T s j
k Hl,k bk = x̃k H̃l,k bk (10) number of users or length of the precoders, the matrix
U
X
where x̃jk no longer contains the OQAM symbols but is a Φs,T s s,T s s,T s
k−1,k Φk−1,k + Ψk,k Ψk,k + Φk+1,k Φk+1,k
purely real vector. Basically, all imaginary j ’s (see (4)) have s=1
s
been shifted into the matrix H̃l,k by multiplying every second
s might be rank deficient. In this case, however, simulations
row of Hl,k with these j ’s. To simplify notation, we further
have shown that using a Moore-Penrose inverse yields good
define
results. This can be done by calculating the singular value
h
s,(R) s,(I)
i decomposition (SVD) and only inverting its singular values
Ψsl,k = H̃l,k −H̃l,k , above a certain threshold. All other inverses are set to zero. The
h
s,(I) s,(R)
i threshold itself has to be chosen carefully to achieve optimal
Φsl,k = H̃l,k H̃l,k , performance.
" #
j,(R)
bk If we want to limit the transmitted signal power we can
ξkj = j,(I) , (11)
bk additionally introduce a power constraint given by

b̂j,T j
k,opt b̂k,opt = 1. (16)
and we can find the following relations
We can satisfy this condition by normalizing the result of (15)
ℜ{xj,T s j j,T s j
k Hl,k bk } = x̃k Ψl,k ξk ,
which yields
ℑ{xj,T s j j,T s j
k Hl,k bk } = x̃k Φl,k ξk . (12) j 1
ξ̂k,opt =q ξ̂kj (17)
j,T j
ξ̂k ξ̂k
Plugging (12) into (6) and (9) and then into (8) and evaluating
Obviously, in this case we need to perform a real-valued signal at user j on subchannel k prior to equalization is given
scaling at the receiver to adjust the power level. The receiver by
output x̂jk [n] therefore has to be multiplied with the scalar Nt k+1 U
X X X
q ykj [n] = hi,j
k,l [n] ∗ bi,s s j
l [n] ∗ xl [n] + η̂k [n]. (22)
γk = ξ̂kj,T ξˆkj .
j
(18) i=1 l=k−1 s=1

In a similar way as in the precoder design we now define a

The optimization described above was performed under new filter pi,j
k,l [n] by convolving the precoder with the total
the assumption that the received signal at time instances n transmission chain, yielding
corresponds to a real valued input sample. It can be shown
Nt X
U k+1
that by using βks [m] instead of αsk [m] and interchanging all X X
ℜ{•} and ℑ{•} operations we end up with the same result. ykj [n] = pi,j s j
k,l [n] ∗ xl [n] + η̂k [n], (23)
i=1 s=1 l=k−1

IV. I TERATIVE P RECODER AND E QUALIZER D ESIGN where

In the following approach we extend the previous design pi,j i,j i,s
k,l [n] = hk,l [n] ∗ bl [n]. (24)
method by dividing the complexity between the transmitter Again we switch to a matrix-vector notation where we define
and receiver. In particular, we will modify the precoder only the vector ykj ∈ CLeq consisting of Leq consecutive output
slightly and additionally design an equalizer that takes care symbols
of residual interference left by the precoder. The result can
then be fed back to design a new precoder, starting the second U
X k+1
X X Nt
iteration step. An initial equalizer is required for the first ykj [n] = i,j s
Pk,l xl [n] + Γk η j [r], (25)
iteration. A possible choice is a simple delay equal to half s=1 l=k−1 i=1
of the equalizer length. i,j
where Pk,l ∈ CLe q×Leq +Q+B−2 is the convolution matrix
corresponding to pi,j k,l . This signal is now filtered with the
A. Precoder Design
equalizer gkj ∈ CLeq and we again shift the imaginary units
In contrast to the precoder design in Section III, the j from the input signal xjk into the convolution matrix by
equalizer now has to be taken into account. We do that by multiplying every second column of Pk,l i,j
with j leaving the
slightly modifying our subchannel model from (2) to resulting x̃sl as a purely real vector:
Nt Xk+1 U 
!
Nt
X X  ( U k+1
!)
j i,j i,s
x̂k [n] = ql,k [n] ∗ s
bl [n] ∗ xl [n] + η̃kj [n], j j,H
X X X i,j s j
α̂k [n] = ℜ gk P̃k,l x̃l [n] + Γk η [r] .
i=1 l=k−1 s=1 s=1 l=k−1 i=1
(19) (26)
with We can now formulate the optimization problem which is given
i,j by
ql,k [n] = gkj [n] ∗ hi,j
l,k [n] (20) h i
ĝkj = arg min E α̂jk [m] − αjk [m − ν] . (27)
being the convolution of the total transmission chain and the j
gk
equalizer. η̃kj [n] = gkj [n] ∗ η̂kj [n] corresponds to the received
noise convolved with the equalizer. If we again change to Compared to (8) we do not have to add additional interference
matrix-vector notation and take the real part of the received terms. They are already embedded in the received signal
signal we get α̂jk [m]. Again we require a linear expression for taking the
real part in (26). Accordingly we now define the new vector
k+1 U
X X and matrices
α̂jk [m] = ℜ{xs,T j s j
l [n]Qk,l bl } + ℜ{η̃k [n]}. (21) "
i,j,(R)
#
l=k−1 s=1 i,j P̃k,l
Θk,l = i,j,(I) ,
P̃k,l
The convolution matrix is now represented by Qjk,l ∈ h iT
j,(R),T j,(I),T
CQ+Leq +B−2×B with Leq being the length of the equalizer. The ϑjk = gk gk . (28)
only differences with (6) are that we have replaced the matrix
j
Hk,l by Qjk,l which includes the equalization and we have Similar to Section III we can show that
obtained a different noise vector which, however, is irrelevant ℜ{gkj,H P̃k,l
i,j s
x̃l [n]} = ϑj,T i,j s
for the optimization. The remaining precoder optimization is k Θk,l x̃l [n]. (29)
therefore equivalent to that in Section III. If we now plug (29) into (26) and then into (27) we find the
optimal equalizer by taking the derivative of (27) with respect
B. Equalizer Design to ϑjk and set it to zero yielding
U k+1
!−1
The proposed equalizer is similar to the one described in j
X X j j,T
ση2j
[8] which is intended for use in a SISO system. Here, we are ϑ̂k = Θk,l Θk,l + 2 Rη̂j,(R) Θjk,k eν , (30)
s=1
σd k
adapting it for use in a multi-user MISO scenario. The received l=k−1
where
0
10
Nt
X
Θjk,k = Θi,j
k,l . (31)
i=1
−1
10
Again we have assumed that the input signals are i.i.d. (see
(14)). The noise covariance matrix Rη̂j,(R) is given by
k
" #
2 (R) (I)
ση ′ ′ T

BER
′ Γk Γk 10
−2

Rη̂j,(R) = Γ Γ Γk = . (32) B=1

k 2 k k Γk
(I)
−Γk
(R) B=2
B=5
B=8
If this optimization is performed for βkj [m] instead of αjk the 10
−3

resulting equalizer will again be the same. For the second

iteration, ϑjk is now fed back to the precoder design in Section
IV-A.
−4
10
−20 −15 −10 −5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
E /N
V. N UMERICAL R ESULTS b 0

Simulations have been conducted to evaluate the perfor-

Fig. 7. Precoder only design for different precoder length: Nt = 4, U = 2
mance of the proposed MISO FBMC Broadcast System. For
this purpose we have used the WINNER Phase II channel
model which is based on the 3GPP Spatial Channel Model [9]. 0
10
For this scenario the position of the Base and Mobile Stations B=1, L =5
eq
are chosen randomly with a maximum BS-MS distance of B=3, L =5
eq
5km. ”Bad Urban Macro Cell” was chosen as the propagation B=5, L =5
eq
scenario with a 11.2 MHz transmission bandwidth, which 10
−1

results in a maximum channel length of roughly Lch = 120

samples. To ensure a highly frequency selective channel we
set the number of subcarriers to M = 512 with Mu = 300 of
BER

−2
10
those used for data transmission. Random 16-QAM symbols
were used and we additionally assumed perfect channel state
information. As a figure of merit we calculate the Bit Error
Ratio (BER) for 200 randomly generated channel realizations 10
−3

with a block length of 1000 samples per subcarrier.

For all scenarios the number of transmit antennas at the
BS has been set to Nt = 4 and we consider three different 10
−4

−20 −15 −10 −5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

cases for U = 2, 3 and 4 users. The quantity Eb /N0 has to E /N
b 0
be understood as a signal-to-noise ratio on a per-user basis.
The choice of the delay ν strongly impacts the results. For
Fig. 8. Iterative desing for different precoder length: Nt = 4, U = 2
our simulations we chose ν = ⌈B/2⌉ and ν = ⌈(B + Leq )/2⌉
for the precoder-only and iterative designs, respectively.
In Fig. 7 we can see the performance of the precoder- 10
0

only approach in a 4x2 system (4 transmit antennas and 2 Nit=1

N =2
users). The BER is given for different lengths of the precoder. it
N =3
It can be seen that the BER decreases significantly if B is N =4
it

it
increased from 1 to 5. Incrementing B any further, however,
−1
does not lead to any additional improvement. To measure the 10

complexity of the implemented system we note that the number

of taps per user is given by Nt B, resulting in 4, 8, 20 and 32
BER

taps for a precoder length of 1, 2, 5 and 8, respectively.

The results for the iterative technique are shown in Fig. 10
−2

8, again for a 4x2 system. The length of the equalizer is kept

constant at Leq = 5 while the precoder length is increased from
1 to 5. The number of iterations is constant at Nit = 4. Again
we see considerable improvement if 3 taps are used instead of −3
1, but the performance for B = 5 is almost equal to that for 10
−20 −15 −10 −5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Eb/N0
B = 3. The complexity per user is now given by Nt B + Leq
yielding 9, 17 and 25 taps for B = 1, 3 and 5.
Fig. 9. Iterative design for different number of iterations: Nt = 4, U = 3,
The impact of the number of iterations is depicted in Fig. 9 B = 3, Leq = 5
where now a 4x3 system has been employed. We can see that
 0 VI. C ONCLUSION
10

In this contribution we have proposed new methods to

design precoders and equalizers for the MISO broadcasting
10
−1 FBMC system on a per-subcarrier basis. The techniques are
based on minimizing the MSE between the transmitted and
received signals while taking ISI, ICI and IUI into account,
and are valid for highly frequency selective channels. While the
BER

10
−2
4x4 precoder only: B=5 first approach yields a closed-form solution for the precoder-
4x4 iterative: B=3, L =5
eq only design, the second iterative approach allows for a joint
4x3 precoder only: B=5
4x3 iterative: B=3, Leq=5 precoder and equalizer optimization. Both approaches show
−3 4x2 precoder only: B=5
good results in a wide SNR range, and the iterative design
10
4x2 iterative: B=3, L =5
eq outperforms the precoder-only design in low and medium
Eb /N0 regimes.
−4
10
−20 −15 −10 −5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
E /N
b 0
This work is partially supported by the European project
EMPhAtiC (ICT- 318362).
Fig. 10. Comparison of iterative and precoder only design for different
number of users and Nt = 4
R EFERENCES
[1] M. El Tabach, J.-P. Javaudin, and M. Helard, “Spatial data multiplexing
in the low Eb /N0 regime the lowest BER is already achieved over OFDM/OQAM modulations,” in Communications, 2007. ICC ’07.
after only one iteration. Further improvement with additional IEEE International Conference on, 2007, pp. 4201–4206.
iterations can only be reached in the high Eb /N0 regime. [2] M. Payaró, A. Pascual-Iserte, and M. Najar, “Performance comparison
Although not shown in this picture, the same is true for the between FBMC and OFDM in MIMO systems under channel uncer-
tainty,” in Wireless Conference (EW), 2010 European, 2010, pp. 1023–
4x2 and the 4x4 systems. 1030.
Finally, the simulation results for precoder-only and it- [3] T. Ihalainen, A. Ikhlef, J. Louveaux, and M. Renfors, “Channel equaliza-
erative approaches are compared for all scenarios in Fig. tion for multi-antenna FBMC/OQAM receivers,” Vehicular Technology,
IEEE Transactions on, vol. 60, no. 5, pp. 2070–2085, 2011.
10. In general, the performance of both designs deteriorates
[4] M. Caus and A. Perez-Neira, “Transmitter-receiver designs for highly
when increasing the number of users. This however is not frequency selective channels in MIMO FBMC systems,” Signal Process-
unexpected since the number of interference terms that have ing, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 60, no. 12, pp. 6519–6532, 2012.
to be minimized increases with additional users. A direct [5] M. Caus and A. I. Perez-Neira, “SDMA for filterbank with Tomlinson
comparison between precoder-only and the iterative approach Harashima precoding,” in Communications (ICC), 2013 IEEE Interna-
in the same scenario shows that in all cases the BER can be tional Conference on, 2013, pp. 4571–4575.
improved in a wide Eb /N0 range by the computationally more [6] T. Karp and N. Fliege, “Modified DFT filter banks with perfect recon-
complex iterative technique. While the overall performance of struction,” Circuits and Systems II: Analog and Digital Signal Processing,
IEEE Transactions on, vol. 46, no. 11, pp. 1404–1414, 1999.
the 4x4 case is rather poor we can still observe a considerable
[7] B. Saltzberg, “Performance of an efficient parallel data transmission
improvement by additionally using the equalizers. In the 4x2 system,” Communication Technology, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 15,
system, a small gain can still be seen but it is rather insignif- no. 6, pp. 805–811, 1967.
icant. It is also interesting to take a look at the complexity in [8] D. Waldhauser, L. Baltar, and J. Nossek, “MMSE subcarrier equalization
terms of “number of taps per user” which amounts to 20 and 17 for filter bank based multicarrier systems,” in Signal Processing Advances
for the precoder-only and the iterative approaches, respectively. in Wireless Communications, 2008. SPAWC 2008. IEEE 9th Workshop
The result suggests that the more complex iterative precoder on, 2008, pp. 525–529.
design allows for a reduced complexity in the implemented [9] L. Hentilä, P. Kyösti, M. Käske, M. Narandzic, and M. Alatossava.
(2007, December) MATLAB implementation of the WINNER
system while achieving the same performance. phase II channel model ver1.1. [Online]. Available: https://www.ist-
winner.org/phase 2 model.html