HOME

"Getting Started" Guide to Cybernetics

What does the word "cybernetics" mean? "Cybernetics" comes from a Greek word meaning "the art of steering". Cybernetics is about having a goal and taking action to achieve that goal. Knowing whether you have reached your goal (or at least are getting closer to it) requires "feedback", a concept that comes from cybernetics. From the Greek, "cybernetics" evolved into Latin as "governor". Draw your own conclusions. When did cybernetics begin? Cybernetics as a process operating in nature has been around for a long time. Cybernetics as a concept in society has been around at least since Plato used it to refer to government. In modern times, the term became widespread because Norbert Wiener wrote a book called "Cybernetics" in 1948. His sub-title was "control and communication in the animal and machine". This was important because it connects control (a.k.a., actions taken in hope of achieving goals) with communication (a.k.a., connection and information flow between the actor and the environment). So, Wiener is pointing out that effective action requires communication. Wiener's sub-title also states that both animals (biological systems) and machines (non-biological or "artificial" systems) can operate according to cybernetic principles. This was an explicit recognition that both living and non-living systems can have purpose. A scary idea in 1948. What's the connection between "cybernetics" and "cyberspace"? According to the author William Gibson, who coined the term "cyberspace" in 1982: Cyber is from the Greek word for navigator. Norbert Wiener coined cybernetics around 1948 to denote the study of teleological mechanisms [systems that embody goals]. NY Times Sunday Magazine 2007 Artificial Intelligence and cybernetics: Aren't they the same thing? No way. Keep reading below. Amaze your friends. This content was written for an encyclopedia and the early paragraphs explain foundational concepts. You can always skip down links at page bottom if you want to see videos or read more about what cyberspace

has to say about cybernetics.

CYBERNETICS A Definition
Artificial Intelligence and cybernetics: Aren't they the same thing? Or, isn't one about computers and the other about robots? The answer to these questions is emphatically, No. Researchers in Artificial Intelligence (AI) use computer technology to build intelligent machines; they consider implementation (that is, working examples) as the most important result. Practitioners of cybernetics use models of organizations, feedback, goals, and conversation to understand the capacity and limits of any system (technological, biological, or social); they consider powerful descriptions as the most important result. The field of AI first flourished in the 1960s as the concept of universal computation [Minsky 1967], the cultural view of the brain as a computer, and the availability of digital computing machines came together to paint a future where computers were at least as smart as humans. The field of cybernetics came into being in the late 1940s when concepts of information, feedback, and regulation [Wiener 1948] were generalized from specific applications in engineering to systems in general, including systems of living organisms, abstract intelligent processes, and language.

Origins of "cybernetics"
The term itself began its rise to popularity in 1947 when Norbert Wiener used it to name a discipline apart from, but touching upon, such established disciplines as electrical engineering, mathematics, biology, neurophysiology, anthropology, and psychology. Wiener, Arturo Rosenblueth, and Julian Bigelow needed a name for their new discipline, and they adapted a Greek word meaning "the art of steering" to evoke the rich interaction of goals, predictions, actions, feedback, and response in systems of all kinds (the term "governor" derives from the same root) [Wiener 1948]. Early applications in the control of physical systems (aiming artillery, designing electrical circuits, and maneuvering simple robots) clarified the fundamental roles of these concepts in engineering; but the relevance to social systems and the softer sciences was also clear from the start. Many researchers from the 1940s through 1960 worked solidly within the tradition of cybernetics without necessarily using the term, some likely (R. Buckminster Fuller) but many less obviously (Gregory Bateson, Margaret Mead).

Limits to knowing
In working to derive functional models common to all systems, early cybernetic researchers quickly realized that their "science of observed systems" cannot be divorced from "a science of observing systems" because it is we who observe [von Foerster 1974]. The cybernetic approach is centrally concerned with this unavoidable limitation of what we can know: our own subjectivity. In this way cybernetics is aptly called "applied epistemology". At minimum, its utility is the production of useful descriptions, and, specifically, descriptions that include the observer in the description. The shift of interest in cybernetics from

"observed systems" physical systems such as thermostats or complex auto-pilots to "observing systems" language-oriented systems such as science or social systems explicitly incorporates the observer into the description, while maintaining a foundation in feedback, goals, and information. It applies the cybernetic frame to the process of cybernetics itself. This shift is often characterized as a transition from 'first-order cybernetics' to 'secondorder cybernetics. Cybernetic descriptions of psychology, language, arts, performance, or intelligence (to name a few) may be quite different from more conventional, hard "scientific" views although cybernetics can be rigorous too. Implementation may then follow in software and/or hardware, or in the design of social, managerial, and other classes of interpersonal systems.

Origins of AI in cybernetics
Ironically but logically, AI and cybernetics have each gone in and out of fashion and influence in the search for machine intelligence. Cybernetics started in advance of AI, but AI dominated between 1960 and 1985, when repeated failures to achieve its claim of building "intelligent machines" finally caught up with it. These difficulties in AI led to renewed search for solutions that mirror prior approaches of cybernetics. Warren McCulloch and Walter Pitts were the first to propose a synthesis of neurophysiology and logic that tied the capabilities of brains to the limits of Turing computability [McCulloch & Pitts 1965]. The euphoria that followed spawned the field of AI [Lettvin 1989] along with early work on computation in neural nets, or, as then called, perceptrons. However the fashion of symbolic computing rose to squelch perceptron research in the 1960s, followed by its resurgence in the late 1980s. However this is not to say that current fashion in neural nets is a return to where cybernetics has been. Much of the modern work in neural nets rests in the philosophical tradition of AI and not that of cybernetics.

Philosophy of cybernetics
AI is predicated on the presumption that knowledge is a commodity that can be stored inside of a machine, and that the application of such stored knowledge to the real world constitutes intelligence [Minsky 1968]. Only within such a "realist" view of the world can, for example, semantic networks and rule-based expert systems appear to be a route to intelligent machines. Cybernetics in contrast has evolved from a "constructivist" view of the world [von Glasersfeld 1987] where objectivity derives from shared agreement about meaning, and where information (or intelligence for that matter) is an attribute of an interaction rather than a commodity stored in a computer [Winograd & Flores 1986]. These differences are not merely semantic in character, but rather determine fundamentally the source and direction of research performed from a cybernetic, versus an AI, stance.

(c) Paul Pangaro 1990

Underlying philosophical differences between AI and cybernetics are displayed by showing how they each construe the terms in the central column. For example, the concept of "representation" is understood quite differently in the two fields. Relations on the left are causal arrows and reflect the reductionist reasoning inherent in AI's "realist" perspective that via our nervous systems we discover the-world-as-it-is. Relations on the right are non-hierarchical and circular to reflect a "constructivist" perspective, where the world is invented (in contrast to being discovered) by an intelligence acting in a social tradition and creating shared meaning via hermeneutic (circular, self-defining) processes. The implications of these differences are very great and touch on recent efforts to reproduce the brain [Hawkins 2004, IBM/EPFL 2004] which maintain roots in the paradigm of "brain as computer". These approaches hold the same limitations of digital symbolic computing and are neither likely to explain, nor to reproduce, the functioning of the nervous system.

Influences
Winograd and Flores credit the influence of Humberto Maturana, a biologist who recasts the concepts of "language" and "living system" with a cybernetic eye [Maturana & Varela 1988], in shifting their opinions away from the AI perspective. They quote Maturana: "Learning is not a process of accumulation of representations of the environment; it is a continuous process of transformation of behavior through continuous change in the capacity of the nervous system to synthesize it. Recall does not depend on the indefinite retention of a structural invariant that represents an entity (an idea, image or symbol), but on the functional ability of the system to create, when certain recurrent demands are given, a behavior that satisfies the recurrent demands or that the observer would class as a reenacting of a previous

one." [Maturana 1980] Cybernetics has directly affected software for intelligent training, knowledge representation, cognitive modeling, computer-supported coperative work, and neural modeling. Useful results have been demonstrated in all these areas. Like AI, however, cybernetics has not produced recognizable solutions to the machine intelligence problem, not at least for domains considered complex in the metrics of symbolic processing. Many beguiling artifacts have been produced with an appeal more familiar in an entertainment medium or to organic life than a piece of software [Pask 1971]. Meantime, in a repetition of history in the 1950s, the influence of cybernetics is felt throughout the hard and soft sciences, as well as in AI. This time however it is cybernetics' epistemological stance that all human knowing is constrained by our perceptions and our beliefs, and hence is subjective that is its contribution to these fields. We must continue to wait to see if cybernetics leads to breakthroughs in the construction of intelligent artifacts of the complexity of a nervous system, or a brain.

Cybernetics Today
The term "cybernetics" has been widely misunderstood, perhaps for two broad reasons. First, its identity and boundary are difficult to grasp. The nature of its concepts and the breadth of its applications, as described above, make it difficult for non-practitioners to form a clear concept of cybernetics. This holds even for professionals of all sorts, as cybernetics never became a popular discipline in its own right; rather, its concepts and viewpoints seeped into many other disciplines, from sociology and psychology to design methods and post-modern thought. Second, the advent of the prefix "cyb" or "cyber" as a referent to either robots ("cyborgs") or the Internet ("cyberspace") further diluted its meaning, to the point of serious confusion to everyone except the small number of cybernetic experts. However, the concepts and origins of cybernetics have become of greater interest recently, especially since around the year 2000. Lack of success by AI to create intelligent machines has increased curiosity toward alternative views of what a brain does [Ashby 1960] and alternative views of the biology of cognition [Maturana 1970]. There is growing recognition of the value of a "science of subjectivity" that encompasses both objective and subjective interactions, including conversation [Pask 1976]. Designers are rediscovering the influence of cybernetics on the tradition of 20th-century design methods, and the need for rigorous models of goals, interaction, and system limitations for the successful development of complex products and services, such as those delivered via today's software networks. And, as in any social cycle, students of history reach back with minds more open than was possible at the inception of cybernetics, to reinterpret the meaning and contribution of a previous era. Such a short summary as this cannot represent the range and depth of cybernetics, and the reader is encouraged to do further research on the topic. There is good material, though sometimes not authoritative, at Wikipedia.org.

Bibliography
Ashby, W. Ross, Design for a Brain. London: Chapman and Hall, 1960. Hawkins, Jeff and Blakeslee, Sandra, On Intelligence. Times Books, 2004. IBM/Ecole Polytechnique Fdrale de Lausanne (EPFL), http://bluebrainproject.epfl.ch/, 2004.

Lettvin, Jerome Y., "Introduction to Volume 1" in W S McCulloch., Volume 1, ed., Rook McCulloch, Salinas, California: Intersystems Publications, 1989, 7-20. McCulloch, Warren S. and Walter H. Pitts, "A Logical Calculus of the Ideas Immanent in Nervous Activity", in Embodiments of Mind by Warren S. McCulloch. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 1965, 19-39. Maturana, Humberto R., Biology of Cognition, 1970. Reprinted in Maturana, Humberto R. and Francisco Varela, Autopoiesis and Cognition: The Realization of the Living. Dordrecht: Reidel, 1980, 2-62. Maturana, Humberto R. and Francisco J. Varela, The Tree of Knowledge. Boston and London: New Science Library, Shambala Publications, Inc, 1988. Minsky, Marvin, Computation: Finite and Infinite Machines. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1967. Minsky, Marvin, ed., Semantic Information Processing. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, 1968. Pask, Gordon, "A Comment, a Case History and a Plan". In Cybernetic Serendipity, ed, J. Reichardt. Rapp and Carroll, 1970. Reprinted in Cybernetics, Art and Ideas, ed., J. Reichardt. London: Studio Vista, 1971, 76-99. Pask, Gordon, Conversation Theory. New York: Elsevier Scientific, 1976. [40MB PDF] von Foerster, Heinz, ed., Cybernetics of Cybernetics. Sponsored by a grant from the Point Foundation to the Biological Computer Laboratory, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois, 1974. von Glasersfeld, Ernst, The Construction of Knowledge, Contributions to Conceptual Semantics. Seaside, California: Intersystems Publications, 1987. Wiener, Norbert, Cybernetics, or control and communication in the animal and the machine. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Technology Press; New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1948. Winograd, Terry and Fernando Flores, Understanding Computers And Cognition: A New Foundation for Design. Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation, 1986. -end-

[Origin of this content: In 1990 Heinz von Foerster was approached by Macmillan to compose the entry on cybernetics for their 1991 Encyclopedia of Computers and von Foerster kindly referred them to me. The published text was (c) Macmillan Publishing while incorporating a figure created for an earlier purpose. Over time, updates, extensions, and clarifications have been incorporated into the text above. - Paul Pangaro, 3 August 2006]

Related Links
Video Footage of cyberneticians Video How AI arose from cybernetics Video Artifacts from Gordon Pask's Conversation Theory Cybernetics ... as the basis for understanding interaction design ... as an approach to software experience ... as an approach to designing conversations ... for designing organizations ... as an alternative to design thinking Conversation Theory, an informal introduction Variety of PDFs of Gordon Pask Unities acrossVon Foerster, Pask, and Maturana Ashby's Requisite Variety applied to social systems

Copyright Paul Pangaro 1994 - 2011. All Rights Reserved.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MIMO
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is about MIMO in wireless communication. For other uses, see MIMO (disambiguation).

Understanding of SISO, SIMO, MISO and MIMO (note that the terms input and output refer to the radio channel carrying the signal, not to the devices having antennas)

In radio, multiple-input and multiple-output, or MIMO (commonly pronounced my-moh or me-moh), is the use of multiple antennas at both the transmitter and receiver to improve communication performance. It is one of several forms of smart antenna technology. Note that the terms input and output refer to the radio channel carrying the signal, not to the devices having antennas. MIMO technology has attracted attention in wireless communications, because it offers significant increases in data throughput and link range without additional bandwidth or increased transmit power. It achieves this goal by spreading the same total transmit power over the antennas to achieve an array gain that improves the spectral efficiency (more bits per second per hertz of bandwidth) or to achieve a diversity gain that improves the link reliability (reduced fading). Because of these properties, MIMO is an important part of modern wireless communication standards such as IEEE 802.11n (Wi-Fi), 4G, 3GPP Long Term Evolution, WiMAX and HSPA+.
Contents
[hide]

1 History of MIMO

o o o

1.1 First concepts 1.2 Principle 1.3 Wireless standards

2 Functions of MIMO 3 Forms of MIMO

o o

3.1 Multi-antenna types 3.2 Multi-user types

4 Applications of MIMO 5 Mathematical description 6 MIMO testing 7 MIMO literature

o o o o

7.1 Principal researches 7.2 Diversity-multiplexing tradeoff (DMT) 7.3 Other applications 7.4 Sampling theory in MIMO systems

8 See also 9 Further reading 10 References 11 External links

[edit]History [edit]First

of MIMO

concepts

The earliest ideas in this field go back to work by A.R. Kaye and D.A. George (1970), Branderburg and Wyner (1974) [1] and W. van Etten (1975, 1976). Jack Winters and Jack Salz at Bell Laboratories published several papers on beamforming related applications in 1984 and 1986.[2]

[edit]Principle
Arogyaswami Paulraj and Thomas Kailath proposed the concept of spatial multiplexing (SM) using MIMO in 1993. Their US Patent (No. 5,345,599 issued in 1994[3]) emphasized applications to wireless broadcast systems. In 1996, Greg Raleigh and Gerard J. Foschini refined new approaches to MIMO technology, considering a configuration where multiple transmit antennas are co-located at one transmitter to improve the link throughput effectively.[4][5] Bell Labs was the first to demonstrate a laboratory prototype of spatial multiplexing in 1998, where spatial multiplexing is a principal technology to improve the performance of MIMO communication systems.[6]

[edit]Wireless

standards

See also: MIMO technology in WiMAX and MIMO technology in 3G mobile standards In the commercial area, Iospan Wireless Inc. developed the first commercial system in 2001 that used MIMO with Orthogonal frequency-division multiple access technology (MIMO-OFDMA). Iospan technology supported both diversity coding and spatial multiplexing. In 2005, Airgo Networks had developed an IEEE

802.11n precursor implementation based on their patents on MIMO. Following that in 2006, several companies (including at least Broadcom, Intel, and Marvell) fielded a MIMO-OFDM solution based on a pre-standard for 802.11n Wi-Fi standard. Also in 2006, several companies (Beceem Communications, Samsung, Runcom Technologies, etc.) had developed MIMO-OFDMA based solutions for IEEE 802.16e WiMAX broadband mobile standard. All upcoming 4G systems will also employ MIMO technology. Several research groups have demonstrated over 1 Gbit/s prototypes.

[edit]Functions

of MIMO

MIMO can be sub-divided into three main categories, precoding, spatial multiplexing or SM, and diversity coding. Precoding is multi-stream beamforming, in the narrowest definition. In more general terms, it is considered to be all spatial processing that occurs at the transmitter. In (single-layer) beamforming, the same signal is emitted from each of the transmit antennas with appropriate phase (and sometimes gain) weighting such that the signal power is maximized at the receiver input. The benefits of beamforming are to increase the received signal gain, by making signals emitted from different antennas add up constructively, and to reduce the multipath fading effect. In the absence of scattering, beamforming results in a well defined directional pattern, but in typical cellular conventional beams are not a good analogy. When the receiver has multiple antennas, the transmit beamforming cannot simultaneously maximize the signal level at all of the receive antennas, and precoding with multiple streams is used. Note that precoding requires knowledge ofchannel state information (CSI) at the transmitter. Spatial multiplexing requires MIMO antenna configuration. In spatial multiplexing, a high rate signal is split into multiple lower rate streams and each stream is transmitted from a different transmit antenna in the same frequency channel. If these signals arrive at the receiver antenna array with sufficiently different spatial signatures, the receiver can separate these streams into (almost) parallel channels. Spatial multiplexing is a very powerful technique for increasing channel capacity at higher signal-to-noise ratios (SNR). The maximum number of spatial streams is limited by the lesser of the number of antennas at the transmitter or receiver. Spatial multiplexing can be used with or without transmit channel knowledge. Spatial multiplexing can also be used for simultaneous transmission to multiple receivers, known as spacedivision multiple access or Multi-user MIMO. The scheduling of receivers with different spatial signatures allows good separability. Diversity Coding techniques are used when there is no channel knowledge at the transmitter. In diversity methods, a single stream (unlike multiple streams in spatial multiplexing) is transmitted, but the signal is coded using techniques called space-time coding. The signal is emitted from each of the transmit antennas with full or near orthogonal coding. Diversity coding exploits the independent fading in the multiple antenna links to enhance signal diversity. Because there is no channel knowledge, there is no beamforming or array gain from diversity coding. Spatial multiplexing can also be combined with precoding when the channel is known at the transmitter or

combined with diversity coding when decoding reliability is in trade-off.

[edit]Forms

of MIMO

Example of an antenna for LTE with 2 ports Antenna diversity

[edit]Multi-antenna

types

Multi-antenna MIMO (or Single user MIMO) technology has been developed and implemented in some standards, e.g. 802.11n products.

SISO/SIMO/MISO are degenerate cases of MIMO

Multiple-input and single-output (MISO) is a degenerate case when the receiver has a single antenna.

Single-input and multiple-output (SIMO) is a degenerate case when the transmitter has a single antenna.

single-input single-output (SISO) is a radio system where neither the transmitter nor receiver have multiple antenna.

Principal single-user MIMO techniques

Bell Laboratories Layered Space-Time (BLAST), Gerard. J. Foschini (1996) Per Antenna Rate Control (PARC), Varanasi, Guess (1998), Chung, Huang, Lozano (2001) Selective Per Antenna Rate Control (SPARC), Ericsson (2004)

Some limitations

The physical antenna spacing is selected to be large; multiple wavelengths at the base station. The antenna separation at the receiver is heavily space constrained in hand sets, though advanced antenna design and algorithm techniques are under discussion. Refer to: Advanced MIMO

[edit]Multi-user

types

Main article: Multi-user MIMO Recently, results of research on multi-user MIMO technology have been emerging. While full multi-user MIMO (or network MIMO) can have a higher potential, practically, the research on (partial) multi-user MIMO (or multi-user and multi-antenna MIMO) technology is more active.

Multi-user MIMO (MU-MIMO)

In recent 3GPP and WiMAX standards, MU-MIMO is being treated as one of the candidate technologies adoptable in the specification by a number of companies, including Samsung, Intel, Qualcomm, Ericsson, TI, Huawei, Philips, Alcatel-Lucent, and Freescale. For these and other firms active in the mobile hardware market, MU-MIMO is more feasible for low complexity cell phones with a small number of reception antennas, whereas single-user SU-MIMO's higher peruser throughput is better suited to more complex user devices with more antennas.

PU2RC allows the network to allocate each antenna to a different user instead of allocating only a single user as in single-user MIMO scheduling. The network can transmit user data through a codebook-based spatial beam or a virtual antenna. Efficient user scheduling, such as pairing spatially distinguishable users with codebook based spatial beams, is additionally discussed for the simplification of wireless networks in terms of additional wireless resource requirements and complex protocol modification. Recently, PU2RC is included in the system description documentation (SDD) of IEEE 802.16m (WiMAX evolution to meet the ITU-R's IMT-Advance requirements).

Enhanced multiuser MIMO: 1) Employs advanced decoding techniques, 2) Employs advanced precoding techniques

SDMA represents either space-division multiple access or super-division multiple access where super emphasises that orthogonal division such as frequency and time division is not used but non-orthogonal approaches such as superposition coding are used.

Cooperative MIMO (CO-MIMO)

Uses distributed antennas which belong to other users.

MIMO Routing

Routing a cluster by a cluster in each hop, where the number of nodes in each cluster is larger or equal to one. MIMO routing is different from conventional (SISO) routing since conventional routing protocols route a node by a node in each hop.[7]

[edit]Applications

of MIMO

Spatial multiplexing techniques make the receivers very complex, and therefore they are typically combined with Orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing (OFDM) or with Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiple Access (OFDMA) modulation, where the problems created by a multi-path channel are handled efficiently.

The IEEE 802.16e standard incorporates MIMO-OFDMA. The IEEE 802.11n standard, released in October 2009, recommends MIMO-OFDM. MIMO is also planned to be used in Mobile radio telephone standards such as recent 3GPP and 3GPP2. In 3GPP, High-Speed Packet Access plus (HSPA+) and Long Term Evolution (LTE)standards take MIMO into account. Moreover, to fully support cellular environments, MIMO research consortia including ISTMASCOT propose to develop advanced MIMO techniques, e.g.,multi-user MIMO (MU-MIMO). MIMO technology can be used in non-wireless communications systems. One example is the home networking standard ITU-T G.9963, which defines a powerline communications system that uses MIMO techniques to transmit multiple signals over multiple AC wires (phase, neutral and ground).[citation needed]

[edit]Mathematical

description

MIMO channel model

In MIMO systems, a transmitter sends multiple streams by multiple transmit antennas. The transmit streams go through a matrix channel which consists of all antennas at the transmitter and paths between the transmit

receive antennas at the receiver. Then, the receiver gets the received

signal vectors by the multiple receive antennas and decodes the received signal vectors into the original information. A narrowband flat fading MIMO system is modelled as

where

and

are the receive and transmit vectors, respectively, and

and

are the channel

matrix and the noise vector, respectively. Referring to information theory, the ergodic channel capacity of MIMO systems where both the transmitter and the receiver have perfect instantaneous channel state information is[8]

where

denotes Hermitian transpose and

is the ratio between transmit power and noise is achieved

power (i.e., transmit SNR). The optimal signal covariance

through singular value decomposition of the channel matrix diagonal power allocation matrix allocation is achieved through waterfilling,
[9]

and an optimal . The optimal power

that is

where argument is negative, and

are the diagonal elements of is selected such that

is zero if its .

If the transmitter has only statistical channel state information, then the ergodic channel capacity will decrease as the signal covariance average mutual information as[8] can only be optimized in terms of the

The spatial correlation of the channel have a strong impact on the ergodic channel capacity with statistical information. If the transmitter has no channel state information it can select the signal covariance to maximize channel capacity under worst-case statistics, which means accordingly and

Depending on the statistical properties of the channel, the ergodic capacity is no greater than times larger than that of a SISO system.

[edit]MIMO

testing

MIMO signal testing focuses first on the transmitter/receiver system. The random phases of the sub-carrier signals can produce instantaneous power levels that cause the amplifier to compress, momentarily causing distortion and ultimately symbol errors. Signals with a high PAR (peak-to-average ratio) can cause amplifiers to compress unpredictably during transmission. OFDM signals are very dynamic and compression problems can be hard to detect because of their noise-like nature.[10] Knowing the quality of the signal channel is also critical. A channel emulator can simulate how a device performs at the cell edge, can add noise or can simulate what the channel looks like at speed. To fully qualify the performance of a receiver, a calibrated transmitter, such as a vector signal generator (VSG), and channel emulator can be used to test the receiver under a variety of different conditions. Conversely, the transmitter's performance under a number of different conditions can be verified using a channel emulator and a calibrated receiver, such as a vector

signal analyzer (VSA). Understanding the channel allows for manipulation of the phase and amplitude of each transmitter in order to form a beam. To correctly form a beam, the transmitter needs to understand the characteristics of the channel. This process is called channel sounding or channel estimation. A known signal is sent to the mobile device that enables it to build a picture of the channel environment. The mobile device sends back the channel characteristics to the transmitter. The transmitter can then apply the correct phase and amplitude adjustments to form a beam directed at the mobile device. This is called a closed-loop MIMO system. For beamforming, it is required to adjust the phases and amplitude of each transmitter. In a beamformer optimized for spatial diversity or spatial multiplexing, each antenna element simultaneously transmits a weighted combination of two data symbols.[11]

[edit]MIMO

literature
researches

[edit]Principal

Papers by Gerard J. Foschini and Michael J. Gans,[12] Foschini[13] and Emre Telatar have shown that the channel capacity (a theoretical upper bound on system throughput) for a MIMO system is increased as the number of antennas is increased, proportional to the minimum number of transmit and receive antennas. This basic finding in information theory is what led to a spurt of research in this area. A text book by A. Paulraj, R. Nabar and D. Gore has published an introduction to this area.[14] Mobile Experts has published a research report which predicts the use of MIMO technology in 500 million PCs, tablets, and smartphones by 2016. link

[edit]Diversity-multiplexing

tradeoff (DMT)

There exists a fundamental tradeoff between diversity and multiplexing in a MIMO system (Zheng and Tse, 2003) .[15]

[edit]Other

applications

Given the nature of MIMO, it is not limited to wireless communication. It can be used for wire line communication as well. For example, a new type of DSL technology (Gigabit DSL) has been proposed based on Binder MIMO Channels.

[edit]Sampling

theory in MIMO systems

An important question which attracts the attention of engineers and mathematicians is how to use the multi-output signals at the receiver to recover the multi-input signals at the transmitter. In Shang, Sun and Zhou (2007), sufficient and necessary conditions are established to guarantee the complete recovery of the multi-input signals. .[16]