Outperforming Conventional OFDM and SEFDM
Signals by Means of Using Optimal Spectral Pulses
and the M-BCJR Algorithm
Aleksandr Gelgor, Van Phe Nguyen
Higher School of Applied Physics and Space Technologies
Peter the Great St. Petersburg Polytechnic University
St. Petersburg, Russia
a_gelgor@mail.ru, nvphe1905@gmail.com
Abstract— In the paper, we compared spectral efficiency
between OFDM signals, reputed SEFDM signals, and recently
proposed RRC-SEFDM and PR-SEFDM signals. The last three
are different types of signals with non-orthogonal frequency
division multiplexing, i.e. signals with intersymbol interference
(ISI). All signals were modulated with QPSK and 16-QAM. For
signals with ISI demodulation was performed by the suboptimal
M-BCJR algorithm with M = 8 paths survived at each step. For
construction PR-SEFDM signals we used optimal spectral pulses
with length L = 12 taps. The simulation results were shown that,
at first, the maximum gain in spectral efficiency is achieved only
with simultaneous introducing ISI and increasing the size of
signal constellation. At second, PR-SEFDM signals with optimal
spectral pulses provide a significant gain in spectral efficiency
with respect to SEFDM signals and RRC-SEFDM signals at fixed
energy consumptions and fixed complexity of the demodulation
algorithm. Also, for QPSK and 16-QAM, with respect to OFDM
signals our proposed PR-SEFDM signals provide up to 27% gain
in spectral efficiency by additional expenses up to 0.6 and 1.3 dB
respectively.
Keywords—SEFDM signals, ISI, RRC-pulses, optimal pulses,
M-BCJR algorithm
I. INTRODUCTION
Currently, OFDM (Orthogonal Frequency-Division
Multiplexing) signals with the cyclic prefix (CP) are used in
majority of wireless broadband communication systems.
Probably, the most popular systems that use OFDM signals are
LTE, WiFi (standards n, ac, ax) and DVB-T2. OFDM signals
provide following significant advantages. Firstly, under some
conditions it is possible to use simple one-tap equalizer
regardless of the complexity of the channel characteristic, one
need only the knowledge of channel state. If the coherence time
of the channel exceeds the duration of several OFDM-symbols,
as it is in WiFi, then one can use preamble to estimate channel
state once per packet. If the coherence time is about the
duration of one OFDM-symbol, as it is in LTE, then one can
use pilot subcarriers to update channel state estimation for each
OFDM-symbol. Secondly, using OFDM signals allows to
effectively distribute time-frequency resources (named
This work was supported by the Ministry of Education and Science of the
Russian Federation (the state contract #8.2880.2017/ПЧ).
XXX-X-XXXX-XXXX-X/XX/$XX.00 ©20XX IEEE
resource elements in LTE) among users, with that the multiple
access is achieved.
Despite the above advantages of OFDM signals, there is
still interest to finding new waveforms, which can provide
better performance, especially with regard to the spectral
efficiency. There are a plenty of publications, where the
authors propose non-orthogonal signals, i.e. signals with
controlled inter-symbol interference (ISI). The effectiveness of
introducing ISI was apparently first proved in [1], where single
carrier signals with linear modulation and sinc-pulse were
considered, i.e. relatively narrowband signals. These signals
were called faster than Nyquist (FTN) signals, because they
exceed the Nyquist limit to increase spectral efficiency. Many
years later in [2] it was proposed the idea of forming SEFDM
(Spectrally Efficient Frequency Division Multiplexing) signals,
which is virtually completely repeat the idea of forming FTN
signals, but it is implemented for relatively broadband signals.
The difference is that FTN signals are processed in the time
domain while SEFDM signals are processed in the frequency
domain. Specifically, SEFDM signals are similar to OFDM
signals, but adjacent subcarriers are located closer in frequency
domain than is required to ensure their orthogonality. The
spectra of subcarriers in OFDM signals have sinc-shape.
Therefore, the reducing the frequency spacing between
subcarriers or, which is the same, between spectral pulses in
SEFDM signals, is similar to the reducing time spacing
between time-pulses in FTN signals.
There are many publications on SEFDM signals, a detailed
overview of which is presented in [3]. GFDM, FBMC, UFMC
and SEFDM signals (the last name is the same as above, but
the signals are different) proposed in [4–7], also can be
considered as non-orthogonal frequency division multiplexing.
However, they differ markedly from SEFDM signals in [2].
In works [8-9], it is noted that the demodulation of SEFDM
signals can be impossible even with a not very strong ISI. In
[9] it was shown that in some cases a bit error rate (BER) does
not fall below a certain level, i.e. there is a saturation effect
arises. To resolve this problem, SEFDM signals are usually
coupled with forward error correction, and the iterative
processing technique (turbo equalizer) is utilized at the receiver
[8-9]. Note that turbo equalizer is also used to improve
processing OFDM signals [10]. Additionally, in [8-9] authors
deal with only QPSK and/or with a small number of
subcarriers.
Considering the above imperfection of SEFDM signals, in
[11] we proposed modified RRC-SEFDM signals. The
distinction of these signals from origin SEFDM signals is the
replacing the spectral pulse of sinc shape by the spectral pulse
of RRC shape (Root Raised Cosine is actually the shape of
corresponding time pulse). This provides a decrease the deep
and the strength of ISI.
In [12] we proposed PR-SEFDM signals, which are another
variation of origin SEFDM signals. Spectral pulses of PR-
SEFDM signals are, at first, finite, that reduce the
computational complexity of demodulation algorithm. At
second, they are optimal by the criterion of the maximization of
the free Euclidean distance for a fixed duration of time pulse.
Using the maximal free Euclidean distance provides minimum
energy consumptions by fixed spectral efficiency, i.e. we can
totally control ISI strength and thus BER.
The examination of SEFDM, RRC-SEFDM, PR-SEFDM
signals with QPSK in [12] showed that PR-SEFDM signals
provide better spectral efficiency by fixed energy
consumptions. This result was obtained for the Viterbi
algorithm with the fixed computational complexity at the
demodulator: it was used trellis with 256 states, which
corresponds to the length of the spectral pulse L = 8. Also, it
was turned out that all of these signals with QPSK lose to the
conventional OFDM signals with 16-QAM, and provide an
insignificant gain with respect to OFDM signals with QPSK.
The goal of the paper is to find new optimal spectral pulses for
PR-SEFDM signals to provide a gain with respect to the
OFDM signals under assumption of reasonable computational
complexity of the demodulation algorithm. In this context, the
paper can be considered as the evolution of [11] and [12].
According to [13] the longer the pulse duration the smaller
the additional gain. In [13] the difference between L = 12 and
L = 14 is negligible. Thus, in the paper, we propose to search
for optimal spectral pulses no longer than L = 12 taps. To
decrease computational complexity of the demodulator we
propose to utilize the M-BCJR algorithm [14], which is sub-
optimal version of the BCJR algorithm [15]. At each step of
forward pass of the M-BCJR algorithm only the best M paths
are surviving. In contrast to [16] in the backward pass, we
propose using only those paths that survived in the forward
pass, as this provides the best results. The important advantage
of the BCJR algorithm and its sub-optimal version the M-
BCJR as compared with the Viterbi algorithm is that they
provide soft decisions at the output, which improves the
efficiency of subsequent FEC decoders. The advantage of the
BCJR algorithm in relation to the sphere decoding (SD)
algorithm [17] is the linear dependence of the computational
complexity on the length of the processed sequence, while the
SD algorithm is virtually impossible to process sequences of
length more than a few dozen [18]. In case of PR-SEFDM
signals, this means that with the SD demodulator it is
impossible to process a large number of subcarriers, i.e. to
process broadband signals. Additionally, we propose to
consider the possibility of using 16-QAM. In [13] we have
shown that the maximum gain in spectral efficiency for single
carrier signals can be achieved only by simultaneously
introducing the ISI and increasing the size of the signal
constellation. Therefore, we expect that similar results will be
obtained for multicarrier signals.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section II
provides a brief description of RRC-SEFDM signals and PR-
SEFDM signals, also a spectra comparison is provided. Section
III contains the parameters for simulation. Section IV presents
the results of simulation; conclusions are provided in section V.
II. NON-ORTHOGONAL FREQUENCY MULTIPLEXING
A. RRC-SEFDM Signals
A baseband RRC-SEFDM signal proposed in [11] can be
described by
N / 2 -1
x(t ) = å å Ck( n ) g ( t - kTb ) exp ( j 2p nDf (t - kTb ) ), (1)
k n =- N / 2
where g(t) is the following finite time pulse:
ì 1, t £ T (1 - b ) / 2;
ï
g (t ) = í
(
ïï 0.5 ëé1 + cos p ( t - T (1 - b ) / 2 ) / b T ûù , ) (2)
ï T (1 - b ) / 2 < t £ T (1 + b ) / 2;
ï
ïî 0, T (1 + b ) / 2 < t ;
0 ≤ β ≤ 1 is the roll-off factor; Tβ = (1 + β)T is the RRC-
SEFDM symbol duration (the part of the duration (1 – β)T
equals to zero and is not transmitted); N is the number of
subcarriers; Ck(n) is the modulation symbol transmitted on the
n-th subcarrier in the k-th RRC-SEFDM symbol; ∆f = α/T is the
frequency distance between adjacent subcarriers; α is the
bandwidth compression factor, 0 < α ≤ 1. Note that if α = 1 and
β = 0, then (1) is equal to conventional OFDM signals. The
RRC-SEFDM signals with β = 0 correspond to the origin
SEFDM signals [2], which will be further referred to as sinc-
SEFDM signals. The spectral pulse corresponding to the time
pulse (2) has the RRC-pulse shape:
sin{(1 - b )p fT } + cos{(1 + b )p fT }4 b fT
aRRC ( f , b ) = . (3)
T {1 - (4 b fT ) 2 }p fT
This fact led to the proposed name of RRC-SEFDM signals. In
[11], the idea of additional truncating the time pulse to a
duration shorter than (1 + β)T was proposed and it is
implemented by zeroing NZS samples at the beginning and
(NZS – 1) samples at the end of the original pulse of 2T length.
On the one hand, it allows to additionally increase the spectral
efficiency by the reduction of the duration of RRC-SEFDM
symbol. At the same time, it leads to decrease the peak factor
due to truncating the edge parts of the time pulse having small
amplitude. On the other hand, it also distorts the spectral pulse,
reduces the noise immunity and, consequently, reduces the
energy efficiency. However, this approach is effective in
general.
The disadvantage of using RRC-SEFDM signals is the need
to use FFT block with K times more size than is required for
similar OFDM signals. The purpose is to over-sample spectrum
and thus make trellis homogeneous [11]. The value of the
coefficient K depends on the compression factor α. In general,
the stronger the compression of the subcarriers, i.e. the smaller
value of α, the greater value of K.
A simplified block diagram for generating and processing
RRC-SEFDM signals is shown in Fig. 1. At the transmitter,
stream of QAM symbols from mapper is divided into N
substreams. Zeros are added to each block of N QAM symbols
at the beginning, at the end, and between each pair of QAM
symbols. Time samples obtained from IFFT block are
elementwise multiplied with the time pulse. Because edge
samples will not be transmitted, are simply dropped.
At the receiver of RRC-SEFDM signals, the procedures are
opposite to the transmitter in general. However, an equalizer is
added at the beginning, and the demodulator is added at the
end. There are spectral samples processed in the demodulator.
B. PR-SEFDM Signals
As the development of the idea of RRC-SEFDM signals, in
[12] we proposed PR-SEFDM signals, where optimal spectral
pulses are used as the shape of the spectrum of subcarriers. A
baseband PR-SEFDM signal can be described by:
N / 2 -1
x(t ) = å å Ck( n ) g ( t - kTe ) exp ( j 2p n ( t - kTe ) / T ),
k n =- N / 2
where g(t) is the time pulse corresponding to the optimal finite
Fig. 1. Block diagram for RRC-SEFDM transmitter and receiver
...
...
NFFT - IFFT
Mapper
S/P
P/S
...
...
...
...
...
Fig. 2. Block diagram for PR-SEFDM transmitter and receiver
spectral pulse a(f) obtained by solving the optimization
problem. The criterion of optimization problem is the
maximization the free Euclidean distance under constraining
the time pulse duration Tε, containing ε percents of pulse
energy. The technique for solving optimization problem is
similar to [19]. Thanks to the ISI introduced between
subcarriers, the length of the useful part of PR-SEFDM symbol
(i.e. with relatively high amplitude values) is less than the
duration of corresponding OFDM symbol, i.e. Tε < T.
Therefore, the idea of zeroing NZS samples at the beginning and
(NZS – 1) samples at the end of the original pulse of T length is
also applied to time pulses of PR-SEFDM signals.
A simplified block diagram for generating and processing
PR-SEFDM signals is shown in Fig. 2. Unlike the transmitter
of RRC-SEFDM signals, zeros are added only at the beginning
and at the end of block of N QAM symbols. Inserting zeros
between modulation symbols is not required, since over-
sampling is not performed for PR-SEFDM signals, i.e. K = 1.
C. Spectra of RRC-SEFDM and PR-SEFDM Signals
To compare spectra of RRC-SEFDM and PR-SEFDM
signals with OFDM signals we used vector signal generator
Agilent E8267D and handheld spectrum analyzer N9342C.
The common parameters of signals are following: carrier
frequency 2.6 GHz, sampling rate 30.72 MHz, number of
subcarriers 1200 (all according to LTE standard).
From Fig. 3 it follows that, at first, the transition from
OFDM signal to sinc-SEFDM signal with α = 0.5 led to
bandwidth compression at 23.71/12.75 = 1.86 times. It is close
(4) to the theoretical value 2 achieved for N → ∞. At second, the
bandwidth of RRC-SEFDM signal with β = 1 is less than the
bandwidth of sinc-SEFDM signal with β = 0 (but RRC-
SEFDM symbol is longer than sinc-SEFDM symbol). At third,
...
...
NFFT - FFT
Equalizer
S/P
P/S
...
...
...
...
...
the bandwidth of PR-SEFDM signal is larger than the
bandwidth of RRC-SEFDM signal and sinc-SEFDM signal,
but PR-SEFDM symbol is shorter than RRC-SEFDM symbol
and sinc-SEFDM symbol. Thus, PR-SEFDM signals can have
larger spectral efficiency than RRC-SEFDM and sinc-SEFDM
signals. In addition, it should be noted that the level of out-of-
band emission of RRC-SEFDM and PR-SEFDM signal is
lower than for sinc-SEFDM signal.
III. SIMULATION PARAMETERS
To study spectral efficiency and energy consumptions of
proposed RRC-SEFDM and PR-SEFDM signals we used
following common parameters corresponding to one of the
LTE scenarios: the size of FFT NFFT = 2048, the number of
data subcarriers N = 1200, QPSK or 16-QAM on each
subcarrier.
For RRC-SEFDM signals, the value α, the corresponding
oversampling coefficient K, and the number of data subcarriers
N are listed in Table 1. For each value α, the following values β
were considered: from 0 to 1 with the step 0.1. All possible
values of NZS were considered in each case.
TABLE I. PARAMETERS OF RRC-SEFDM SIGNALS
Α 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5
K 2 10 5 10 5 2
N 1200 1332 1500 1714 2000 2400
For PR-SEFDM signals we used spectral pulses of length
L = 12 taps. The value Tε/T was chosen such that for time pulse
the number of samples NFFTTε/T containing ε percent of pulse
power is an integer. As with RRC-SEFDM signals, all possible
values of NZS were considered.
The aim of the paper is to estimate potential possibilities of
proposed RRC-SEFDM and PR-SEFDM signals. Therefore,
we supposed ideal time and frequency synchronization and
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
Fig. 3. Spectra of OFDM signal (a), sinc-SEFDM signal with α = 0.5 and
β = 0 (b), RRC-SEFDM signal with α = 0.5 and β = 1 (c), PR-SEFDM signal
with normalized pulse’s length TεT = 0.75 and ε = 0.99 (d). The occupied
bandwidth contained 99% of signal power
AWGN channel with ideal estimation of the channel state. In
addition, we used zero-forcing equalizer.
To study the dependence of efficiency of the M-BCJR
algorithm on its computational complexity we used several
values for number of surviving paths: M = 4, 8, 16.
IV. SIMULATION RESULTS
Let us define the energy consumptions as the value of
signal-to-noise ratio per modulation bit:
h 2 = Ebit / N 0 , (5)
We define the spectral efficiency as follows:
g = R / W99% , (6)
where R is the transmission bitrate (bit/s), W99% is the
bandwidth comprising 99% energy of signal’s power.
As in [12] the studying characteristics of PR-SEFDM
signals with ε = 0.95, 0.99, 0.999 for QPSK and 16-QAM cases
showed that the value ε = 0.999 provides the best results.
Therefore, only the results for PR-SEFDM signals with
ε = 0.999 will be presented.
The analysis of Fig. 4 shows that as the value of M
decreases the efficiency of the M-BCJR algorithm decreases.
However, for h2 ≤ 14 dB, where the ISI is not very strong, the
detection quality of M-BCJR algorithm is almost the same for
M = 8, 16, and coincides with the one for the “true” BCJR
algorithm (not drawn on Fig. 4). This phenomenon is explained
by the fact that with not very strong ISI the most energy of the
optimal spectral pulse is concentrated at its beginning.
The utilizing M-BCJR algorithm for RRC-SEFDM signals
(that is, for sinc-SEFDM too, as sinc-SEFDM is a particular
case of RRC-SEFDM) is not always successful. Since the small
Fig. 4. Comparison of (γ, h2) dependencies for PR-SEFDM signals with
L = 12, ε = 0.999; the results are obtained with using the M-BCJR algorithm
and M = 4, 8, 16. For PR-SEFDM signals we considered many optimal pulses,
and each curve consist of points corresponding to those combinations of pulse
shape and NZS value which providing the best results.
values at the edges of the RRC pulses, it is sometimes more
effective to apply a shortened central part of origin pulse in the
, bit/s/Hz BER = 10 -4 1.3 dB
demodulator [20]. This fact explains why the values of pulse’s 5 RRC-SEFDM, QPSK
length L = 4, 8, 12 were also considered at the demodulator for RRC-SEFDM, 16-QAM
25%
RRC-SEFDM signals. PR-SEFDM, QPSK
PR-SEFDM, 16-QAM
From Fig. 5 it follows that, firstly, when using the M-BCJR 4
OFDM
algorithm, PR-SEFDM signals with the optimal spectral pulses
16-QAM
provide a gain in spectral efficiency with respect to RRC-
SEFDM signals. Indeed, with a fixed signal constellation the
curves for PR-SEFDM signals are always higher than curves 3 0.6 dB
for RRC-SEFDM signals. Secondly, the maximum increase in 27%
spectral efficiency is achieved with a simultaneous increasing
the size of the signal constellation and with introducing ISI. OFDM h2 , dB
2 QPSK
This follows from the fact that the curves for PR-SEFDM
signals with 16-QAM are higher than the curves for the QPSK. 8.4 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Thirdly, with QPSK and 16-QAM PR-SEFDM signals provide 2
Fig. 5. Comparison of (γ, h ) dependencies for PR-SEFDM signals with
gains in spectral efficiency up to 27% with respect to OFDM L = 12, ε = 0.999 and RRC-SEFDM signals with L = 4, 8, 12; the results are
signals. In these cases, the energy losses are no more than obtained with using the M-BCJR algorithm and M = 8. For RRC-SEFDM
1.3 dB. signals we observed many combinations of values α, β, and NZS, including
β = 0, NZS = 0 corresponding to sinc-SEFDM. Each RRC-SEFDM curve
consist of points corresponding to those triplets (α, β, NZS) which providing
V. CONCLUSIONS the best results.
In the paper, we have shown the superiority of our [8] Tongyang Xu, Izzat Darwazeh, “Spectrally Efficient FDM: Spectrum
proposed PR-SEFDM signals over the conventional OFDM Saving Technique for 5G?,” in International Conference on 5G for
signals and origin SEFDM-signals. It was shown that the Ubiquitous Connectivity (5GU), 2014, pp. 273-278.
maximum gain in spectral efficiency is achieved only with [9] Rashich, A., Kislitsyn, A., Fadeev, D., Ngoc Nguyen, T., “FFT-based
trellis receiver for SEFDM signals,” in IEEE Global Communications
simultaneously increasing the size of signal constellation and Conference (GLOBECOM), Washington, DC, 2016, pp. 1-6.
with introducing the controlled ISI. All these results are [10] A. Gelgor, A. Gorlov, P. Ivanov, E. Popov, A. Arkhipkin, T. Gelgor,
obtained with the M-BCJR algorithm at the demodulator and “Improving BER Performance of Uplink LTE by Using Turbo
only with M = 8 surviving paths at each step of the algorithm. Equalizer,” Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2015, pp. 459-472.
[11] A. Gelgor, A. Gorlov and Van Phe Nguyen, “The design and
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS performance of SEFDM with the sinc-to-RRC modification of
subcarriers spectrums,” in IEEE International Conference on Advanced
The simulation results were obtained with the use of Technologies for Communications (ATC), 2016, pp. 65–69.
computational resources of the Supercomputing Center of Peter [12] A. Gelgor, A. Gorlov and Van Phe Nguyen, “Performance analynis of
the Great St. Petersburg Polytechnic University SEFDM with optimal subcarriers spectrum shapes,” in Black Sea
Conference on Communications and Nerworking (BlackSeaCom), 2017
(http://www.scc.spbstu.ru). IEEE International, pp. 1–5.
[13] Van Phe Nguyen, A. Gorlov, A. Gelgor, “An Intentional Introduction of
REFERENCES ISI Combined with Signal Constellation Size Increase for Extra Gain in
Bandwidth Efficiency,” Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2017, pp.
[1] J.E. Mazo, “Faster-than-Nyquist signaling,” Bell System Technical
644-652.
Journal, vol. 54, no. 8, pp. 1451–1462, 1975.
[14] V. Franz and J. B. Anderson, “Concatenated Decoding with a Reduced-
[2] M. Rodrigues and I. Darwazeh, “A spectrally efficient frequency
Search BCJR Algorithm,” IEEE Journals on Select. Area. Commun.,
division multiplexing based communications system,” in Proc. 8th Int.
vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 186-195, 1998.
OFDM Workshop, Hamburg, 2003, pp. 48–49.
[15] L. Bahl, J. Cocke, F. Jelinek and J. Raviv, “Optimal decoding of linear
[3] Izzat Darwazeh, Hedaia Ghannam, Tongyang Xu, “The First 15 Years of
codes for minimizing symbol error rate,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol.
SEFDM: A Brief Survey,” 2018 11th International Symposium on
20, no. 2, pp. 284–287, 1974.
Communication Systems, Networks & Digital Signal Processing
(CSNDSP), Year: 2018, Page s: 1–7. [16] A. Plotnikov, A. Gelgor, “Spectral Efficiency Comparison Between
FTN Signaling and Optimal PR Signaling for Low Complexity
[4] N. Michailow, M. Matthe, I. Gaspar, A. Caldevilla, L. Mendes, A.
Detection Algorithm,” Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2018, pp.
Festag, and G. Fettweis, “Generalized frequency division multi-plexing
191-199.
for 5th generation cellular networks,” Communications, IEEE
Transactions on, vol. 62, no. 9, Sept 2014, pp. 3045–3061. [17] U. Fincke and M. Pohst, “Improved Methods for Calculating Vectors of
Short Length in a Lattice, Including a Complexity Analysis,”
[5] M. Schellmann, Z. Zhao, H. Lin, P. Siohan, N. Rajatheva, V. Luecken,
mathematics of computation, vol. 44, no. 170, pp. 463-471, 1985.
and A. Ishaque, “FBMC-based air interface for 5G mobile: Challenges
and proposed solutions,” in CROWNCOM, 2014 9th International [18] Babak Hassibi and Haris Vikalo, “On the Sphere-Decoding Algorithm I.
Conference on, June 2014, pp. 102–107. Expected Complexity,” IEEE Trans. sig. proc., vol. 53, no. 8, 2005.
[6] V. Vakilian, T. Wild, F. Schaich, S. Ten Brink, and J.-F. Frigon, [19] Said and J.B. Anderson, “Bandwidth-efficient coded modulation with
“Universal-filtered multi-carrier technique for wireless systems beyond optimized linear partial-response signals,” IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory,
LTE,” in Globecom Workshops (GC Wkshps), 2013 IEEE, Dec 2013, vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 701–713, 1998.
pp. 223–228. [20] A. Gorlov, A. Gelgor, V.P. Nguyen, “Root-Raised Cosine versus
[7] S. Zavjalov, S. Volvenko, S. Makarov, "A Method for Increasing the Optimal Finite Pulses for Faster-than-Nyquist Generation”, Lecture
Spectral and Energy Efficiency SEFDM Signals," in IEEE Notes in Computer Science, 2016, pp. 628-640.
Communications Letters, vol. 20, issue 12, pp. 2382-2385, 2016.