In radio, multiple-input and multiple-output, or MIMO (/ˈmaɪmoʊ, ˈmiːmoʊ/), is a method for

multiplying the capacity of a radio link using multiple transmission and receiving antennas to
exploit multipath propagation.[1] MIMO has become an essential element of wireless communication
standards including IEEE 802.11n (Wi-Fi), IEEE 802.11ac (Wi-Fi), HSPA+ (3G), WiMAX (4G),
and Long Term Evolution (4G LTE). More recently, MIMO has been applied to power-line
communication for 3-wire installations as part of ITU G.hn standard and HomePlug AV2
specification.[2][3]
At one time, in wireless the term "MIMO" referred to the use of multiple antennas at the transmitter
and the receiver. In modern usage, "MIMO" specifically refers to a practical technique for sending
and receiving more than one data signal simultaneously over the same radio channel by exploiting
multipath propagation. MIMO is fundamentally different from smart antenna techniques developed to
enhance the performance of a single data signal, such as beamforming and diversity.

Contents

 1History
o 1.1Early research
o 1.2Invention
o 1.3Standards and commercialization
 2Functions
 3Forms
o 3.1Multi-antenna types
o 3.2Multi-user types
 4Applications
 5Mathematical description
 6Testing
 7Literature
o 7.1Principal researchers
o 7.2Diversity-multiplexing tradeoff
o 7.3Other applications
o 7.4Sampling theory in MIMO systems
 8See also
 9References
 10External links

History[edit]
Early research[edit]
MIMO is often traced back to 1970s research papers concerning multi-channel digital transmission
systems and interference (crosstalk) between wire pairs in a cable bundle: AR Kaye and DA George
(1970),[4] Branderburg and Wyner (1974),[5] and W. van Etten (1975, 1976).[6] Although these are not
examples of exploiting multipath propagation to send multiple information streams, some of the
mathematical techniques for dealing with mutual interference proved useful to MIMO development.
In the mid-1980s Jack Salz at Bell Laboratories took this research a step further, investigating multi-
user systems operating over "mutually cross-coupled linear networks with additive noise sources"
such as time-division multiplexing and dually-polarized radio systems.[7]
Methods were developed to improve the performance of cellular radio networks and enable more
aggressive frequency reuse in the early 1990s. Space-division multiple access (SDMA) uses
directional or smart antennas to communicate on the same frequency with users in different
locations within range of the same base station. An SDMA system was proposed by Richard Roy
and Björn Ottersten, researchers at ArrayComm, in 1991. Their US patent (No. 5515378 issued in
1996[8]) describes a method for increasing capacity using "an array of receiving antennas at the base
station" with a "plurality of remote users."

Invention[edit]
Arogyaswami Paulraj and Thomas Kailath proposed an SDMA-based inverse multiplexing technique
in 1993. Their US patent (No. 5,345,599 issued in 1994[9]) described a method of broadcasting at
high data rates by splitting a high-rate signal "into several low-rate signals" to be transmitted from
"spatially separated transmitters" and recovered by the receive antenna array based on differences
in "directions-of-arrival." Paulraj was awarded the prestigious Marconi Prize in 2014 for "his
pioneering contributions to developing the theory and applications of MIMO antennas. ... His idea for
using multiple antennas at both the transmitting and receiving stations – which is at the heart of the
current high speed WiFi and 4G mobile systems – has revolutionized high speed wireless."[10]
In an April 1996 paper and subsequent patent, Greg Raleigh proposed that natural multipath
propagation can be exploited to transmit multiple, independent information streams using co-located
antennas and multi-dimensional signal processing.[11] The paper also identified practical solutions for
modulation (MIMO-OFDM), coding, synchronization, and channel estimation. Later that year
(September 1996) Gerard J. Foschini submitted a paper that also suggested it is possible to multiply
the capacity of a wireless link using what the author described as "layered space-time
architecture."[12]
Greg Raleigh, V. K. Jones, and Michael Pollack founded Clarity Wireless in 1996, and built and field-
tested a prototype MIMO system.[13] Cisco Systems acquired Clarity Wireless in 1998.[14] Bell Labs
built a laboratory prototype demonstrating its V-BLAST (Vertical-Bell Laboratories Layered Space-
Time) technology in 1998.[15] Arogyaswami Paulraj founded Iospan Wireless in late 1998 to develop
MIMO-OFDM products. Iospan was acquired by Intel in 2003.[16] V-BLAST was never
commercialized, and neither Clarity Wireless nor Iospan Wireless shipped MIMO-OFDM products
before being acquired.[17]

Standards and commercialization[edit]

See also: MIMO technology in WiMAX and MIMO technology in 3G mobile standards
MIMO technology has been standardized for wireless LANs, 3G mobile phone networks,
and 4G mobile phone networks and is now in widespread commercial use. Greg Raleigh and V. K.
Jones founded Airgo Networks in 2001 to develop MIMO-OFDM chipsets for wireless LANs.
The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) created a task group in late 2003 to
develop a wireless LAN standard delivering at least 100 Mbit/s of user data throughput. There were
two major competing proposals: TGn Sync was backed by companies including Intel and Philips,
and WWiSE was supported by companies including Airgo Networks, Broadcom, and Texas
Instruments. Both groups agreed that the 802.11n standard would be based on MIMO-OFDM with
20 MHz and 40 MHz channel options.[18] TGn Sync, WWiSE, and a third proposal (MITMOT, backed
by Motorola and Mitsubishi) were merged to create what was called the Joint Proposal.[19] In 2004,
Airgo became the first company to ship MIMO-OFDM products.[20] Qualcomm acquired Airgo
Networks in late 2006.[21] The final 802.11n standard supported speeds up to 600 Mbit/s (using four
simultaneous data streams) and was published in late 2009.[22]
Surendra Babu Mandava and Arogyaswami Paulraj founded Beceem Communications in 2004 to
produce MIMO-OFDM chipsets for WiMAX. The company was acquired by Broadcom in
2010.[23] WiMAX was developed as an alternative to cellular standards, is based on
the 802.16e standard, and uses MIMO-OFDM to deliver speeds up to 138 Mbit/s. The more
advanced 802.16m standard enables download speeds up to 1 Gbit/s.[24] A nationwide WiMAX
network was built in the United States by Clearwire, a subsidiary of Sprint-Nextel, covering 130
million points of presence (PoP) by mid-2012.[25] Sprint subsequently announced plans to deploy LTE
(the cellular 4G standard) covering 31 cities by mid-2013[26] and to shut down its WiMAX network by
the end of 2015.[27]
The first 4G cellular standard was proposed by NTT DoCoMo in 2004.[28] Long term evolution (LTE)
is based on MIMO-OFDM and continues to be developed by the 3rd Generation Partnership
Project (3GPP). LTE specifies downlink rates up to 300 Mbit/s, uplink rates up to 75 Mbit/s, and
quality of service parameters such as low latency.[29] LTE Advanced adds support for picocells,
femtocells, and multi-carrier channels up to 100 MHz wide. LTE has been embraced by both
GSM/UMTS and CDMA operators.[30]
The first LTE services were launched in Oslo and Stockholm by TeliaSonera in 2009.[31] There are
currently more than 360 LTE networks in 123 countries operational with approximately 373 million
connections (devices).[32]

Functions[edit]
MIMO can be sub-divided into three main categories: precoding, spatial multiplexing (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-stream)
beamforming, the same signal is emitted from each of the transmit antennas with appropriate phase
and 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 line-of-sight
propagation, beamforming results in a well-defined directional pattern. However, conventional
beams are not a good analogy in cellular networks, which are mainly characterized by multipath
propagation. 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 often beneficial. Note that precoding requires knowledge of channel state
information (CSI) at the transmitter and the receiver.
Spatial multiplexing requires MIMO antenna configuration. In spatial multiplexing,[33][34] 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 and the receiver has accurate CSI, it 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 without CSI at the transmitter, but can be combined with precoding if CSI is
available. Spatial multiplexing can also be used for simultaneous transmission to multiple receivers,
known as space-division multiple access or multi-user MIMO, in which case CSI is required at the
transmitter.[35] 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. Diversity coding can be
combined with spatial multiplexing when some channel knowledge is available at the transmitter.
Forms[edit]

Example of an antenna for LTE with 2 port antenna diversity

Multi-antenna types[edit]
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 special cases of MIMO

o Multiple-input and single-output (MISO) is a special case when the receiver has a single
antenna.
o Single-input and multiple-output (SIMO) is a special case when the transmitter has a single
antenna.
o Single-input single-output (SISO) is a conventional radio system where neither transmitter
nor receiver has multiple antenna.
 Principal single-user MIMO techniques
o Bell Laboratories Layered Space-Time (BLAST), Gerard. J. Foschini (1996)
o Per Antenna Rate Control (PARC), Varanasi, Guess (1998), Chung, Huang, Lozano (2001)
o Selective Per Antenna Rate Control (SPARC), Ericsson (2004)
 Some limitations
o 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 handsets,
though advanced antenna design and algorithm techniques are under discussion. Refer
to: multi-user MIMO
Multi-user types[edit]
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.[36][33]

 Multi-user MIMO (MU-MIMO)

o 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, Nokia, 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 per-user throughput is better suited to more complex user devices with more
antennas.
o Enhanced multiuser MIMO: 1) Employs advanced decoding techniques, 2) Employs
advanced precoding techniques
o 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)
o Uses multiple neighboring base stations to jointly transmit/receive data to/from users. As a
result, neighboring base stations don't cause intercell interference as in the conventional
MIMO systems.[33]
 Macrodiversity MIMO
o A form of space diversity scheme which uses multiple transmit or receive base stations for
communicating coherently with single or multiple users which are possibly distributed in the
coverage area, in the same time and frequency resource.[37][38][39]
o The transmitters are far apart in contrast to traditional microdiversity MIMO schemes such
as single-user MIMO. In a multi-user macrodiversity MIMO scenario, users may also be far
apart. Therefore, every constituent link in the virtual MIMO link has distinct average
link SNR. This difference is mainly due to the different long-term channel impairments such
as path loss and shadow fading which are experienced by different links.
o Macrodiversity MIMO schemes pose unprecedented theoretical and practical challenges.
Among many theoretical challenges, perhaps the most fundamental challenge is to
understand how the different average link SNRs affect the overall system capacity and
individual user performance in fading environments.[40]
 MIMO Routing
o 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 node-by-node in each hop.[41]
 Massive MIMO
o a technology where the number of terminals is much less than the number of base station
(mobile station) antennas.[42] In a rich scattering environment, the full advantages of the
massive MIMO system can be exploited using simple beamforming strategies such as
maximum ratio transmission (MRT),[43] maximum ratio-combining (MRC)[44] or zero forcing
(ZF). To achieve these benefits of massive MIMO, accurate CSI must be available perfectly.
However, in practice, the channel between the transmitter and receiver is estimated from
orthogonal pilot sequences which are limited by the coherence time of the channel. Most
importantly, in a multicell setup, the reuse of pilot sequences of several co-channel cells will
create pilot contamination. When there is pilot contamination, the performance of massive
MIMO degrades quite drastically. To alleviate the effect of pilot contamination, the work
of[45] proposes a simple pilot assignment and channel estimation method from limited training
sequences. However, in 2018 research by Emil Björnson, Jakob Hoydis, Luca Sanguinetti
was published which has shown that pilot contamination is soluble and have found that
capacity of a channel can always be increased, both in theory and practice by increasing the
number of antennas.[46]

Applications[edit]
See also: Cooperative 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 IST-MASCOT 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).[2]

Taking a Closer Look at MIMO Radio Systems

What are the factors that push designers to opt for multiple-input, multiple-output systems?
Selective and non-selective fading, OFDM, and channel equalization, to name a few.

Brian Petted | Mar 22, 2019

Download this article in PDF format.

This article introduces the rationale and techniques associated with multiple-input,
multiple-output (MIMO) based communication systems. The communication
impairments due to multipath channels are discussed to provide the base motivation for
the application of the MIMO technique. In particular, it explores the use of orthogonal
frequency-division multiplexing (OFDM) and spatial multiplexing for equalizing
broadband wireless channels with non-selective fading.

Fading Channels

The presence of multiple reflections and multiple communication paths between two
radio terminals causes signal fading impairments to a wireless-communication link.
Both selective and non-selective fading exist. Non-selective fading happens when the
frequency components over the signal bandwidth are dynamically attenuated by the
same amount and do not create any signal distortion—only temporal signal loss.
Selective fading is the case when smaller frequency segments of the signal’s spectrum
are attenuated relative to the other remaining frequency segments. When this occurs,
the signal spectrum is distorted, which in turn creates a communication impairment
that’s independent of signal level.

For narrowband signals with non-selective fading, the communication impairment can
be countered by providing more signal-level margin in the communication link or using
selection-diversity techniques to select the best antenna input based on the relative
signal strength. However, in the case of non-selective fading, the signal must be
equalized to restore the signal fidelity and expected communication performance.

This fading is produced by the arrival of multiple replicas of the transmitted signal at the
receiving antenna. The signal replicas are produced by multiple random reflections
within the communication medium, such as an indoor communication channel. Figure
1 shows the multipath concept for reference. It’s based on the notion of an ellipsoidal
fading model.1
1. This is a multipath channel model illustration.

Consider the case in which a simple two-ray fading model is constructed and the signal
attenuation versus communication range is able to be generated. One will find the
presence of crests and nulls due to the constructive and destructive interference caused
by the arrival of the signals at different delay times, leading to difference phase angles.
In some cases, the phase angle can be at or near 180 degrees and can cause partial signal
cancellation.

Conversely, signals that are in-phase may cause partial signal enhancement. Figure
2 shows the attenuation profile for a two-ray fading model. Note the periodic signal
nulls as the communication range changes. The period of the null spacing is one-half
wavelength.
2. Shown are multipath effects on attenuation versus communication range for a two-
ray model.

Antenna Diversity

As mentioned previously, the effects of this localized and sudden attenuation can be
compensated by receiving the signal at two different receiver-antenna placement
locations and selecting the best antenna based on the signal strength or some other
receiver performance measure. Figure 3 illustrates this situation by showing the signal
strength at two different antenna placements over communication range and/or time.
The point of the illustration is that the signal strengths associated with the antennas
generally are not correlated in time and/or space. When one signal is in a null, the other
can be found near a maximum and selected for communication.
3. Relative signal strength is depicted for two receive antenna locations within a
multipath channel.

Selecting one antenna over the other based on signal quality, or selection diversity, is a
technique that works well for non-selective fading. That’s because antenna selection is
essentially a signal-strength restoration technique. The effects of antenna diversity for a
Rayleigh fading channel result in a 17.5-dB gain in performance. Note that the same
performance can be achieved by introducing additional signal-level margin of 27.5 dB
without the additional antenna and selection scheme.

Selective Fading

However, for broader band signals more commonly used in modern wireless systems
like wireless LAN, selection diversity and other signal-strength restoration techniques
are not enough to equalize the impairments imposed by the multipath channel due to
selective fading.
Selective fading occurs when the signal bandwidth exceeds the coherence bandwidth of
the channel.2 The coherence bandwidth of the channel is approximately the reciprocal of
the delay spread of the channel.2 The delay spread is the rms average of the delay times
of the channel’s complex impulse response. The channel’s impulse response is the
received complex envelope at a particular point in space, assuming that a carrier signal
is modulated by a Dirac impulse. The arrival of the various signal components can be
modeled by a finite-impulse-response (FIR) filter.

Ideally, the channel transfer function only adds a flat fading process (constant
attenuation versus frequency) and a single fixed time delay (linear phase). However,
some cases result in the creation of a transfer function for the signal that provides
asymmetric and frequency-dependent fading of amplitude, as well as a nonlinear phase
response, assuming that significant sidebands of the signal are distributed across the
entire transfer function.

If the sidebands of a complex modulated signal were distributed across the transfer
function, there would be significant signal distortion and modulation conversion (AM to
PM and PM to AM). This is again the effect of a multipath channel with a coherence
bandwidth that’s less than the signal bandwidth.

To compensate for these effects, the transfer function encountered via the
communication channel must be equalized at the receiver. Ideally, if the inverse of the
transfer function could be applied to the signal prior to detection to flatten the
amplitude response and linearize the phase, the signal impairments would be
eliminated.

Several different types of transversal equalizers operate on the time-domain

representation of the baseband signal to achieve the equalization. However, many rely
on training sequences and training periods (receipt of non-information bearing training
information that creates communication overhead).
OFDM and Channel Equalization

The introduction of OFDM signaling provided a means of spectrally efficient

communications and a means for channel equalization in the frequency domain. Figure
4shows a diagram of an OFDM spectrum, revealing 48 data subcarriers and four pilot
subcarriers. The pilot subcarriers are not information bearing, but rather are used to
help maintain the carrier and timing tracking in low-signal-to-noise ratios since they are
always BPSK modulated.

4. Three isolated subcarriers are present in this construct of an entire OFDM spectrum.
Revealed is subcarrier spectrum that arises from amplitude masking by FFT interval
and guard interval.
OFDM essentially offers a way to sample the magnitude and phase of the channel at any
or all of the subcarrier frequencies, since the carrier phase tracked at the receiver and all
subcarrier phases are coherent to the main carrier. However, in practice, performing
continuous subcarrier phase tracking on each of the subcarriers is not executed. Rather,
short and long training symbols with known patterns are transmitted with each packet.
Therefore, the receiver can determine the channel transfer function, invert it, and then
apply the inverse to the received spectrum to equalize the channel on a packet-by-packet
basis.

5. Depicted is the channel transfer function effect on OFDM spectrum. Each subcarrier
has its magnitude and phase altered, but can be sensed and used to generate an
equalization filter transfer function.

Figure 5 illustrates how the channel transfer function due to selective fading weights the
received spectrum. At the receiver, the magnitude and phase of each subcarrier provide
an estimate of the channel transfer function, Hc(ω). An equalization transfer function,
He(ω), can be applied to the channel-weighted spectrum to re-normalize the spectrum in
order to reduce or eliminate the effects of the channel.
Multiple-Input, Multiple-Output Systems

The previous sections discussed multipath channels, non-selective fading, selective

fading, and OFDM signaling. Furthermore, it was shown that antenna selection diversity
is a technique for improving the performance in a non-selective fading channel and that
OFDM provides for channel equalization against frequency-selective fading. This section
digs into the MIMO technique, essentially bringing two elements together: OFDM and
antenna diversity.

In general, different permutations of redundant transmitters and receivers improve the

robustness of a communication link as well as its information carrying capacity. Figure
6shows the different general redundancy configurations: single-input, single-output
(SISO), single-input, multiple-output (SIMO), multiple-input, single-output (MISO),
and MIMO.
6. Shown are several communication system configurations.

SISO systems do not provide any type of robustness or capacity improvement. They
represent a basic wireless communication link. SIMO systems are configurations that
provide receive-side diversity and provide additional robustness, but no capacity
improvement. Examples of SIMO systems are receivers with selection-diversity schemes
or linear-maximal-ratio-combining (LMRC) schemes.2

MISO offers transmitter diversity in that it couples to the channel at different points in
space. Thus, the links will not have the same fading characteristics to the receive
antenna and the spatial sum of the signals will be dominated by the stronger of the two
signals. Or the transmitter signal design can be such that the combining at the single
receiver can be made in an optimal fashion, as is done in space-time coding
techniques.2 MIMO systems de-multiplex the source data stream into multiple
independent channel streams, allowing for both redundancy and channel-capacity
improvement.3

The MIMO technique is also referred to as spatial division multiplexing. A single source
data stream is multiplexed between two spatial streams. As shown in Figure 6, direct
links and cross links exist between the two transmitters and two receivers. As a result,
four different communication channels now connect the two terminals, and the
characterization of the channel has a higher complexity. However, the signaling
technique when combined with the properties of OFDM modulation can lead to an
efficient channel estimation and equalization scheme.

Figure 7 shows the spatial-multiplexing scheme in which even signals are transmitted
on TX0 and odd symbols are transmitted on TX1. The two receivers, RX0 and RX1,
receive both transmitted streams through four possible channel transfer functions: h00,
h01, h10, and h11. These form a channel matrix, [H].

7. In this case, 2-×-2 MIMO is a spatial multiplexer.

To equalize and extract the source symbol stream, an estimate of the channel matrix,
[H], must be made. This can be accomplished by transmitting both streams using a
coordinated system of pilot subcarriers and null subcarriers (Fig. 8).

8. Here, 2-×-2 coordinated pilot subcarriers and null subcarriers are at each
transmitter.

Figure 9 represents the received spectrum, showing that relative levels of each
subcarrier indicate relative levels between the direct and cross channel terms in the
channel matrix [H].
9. The received spectrum at RX0 shows the relative levels of h00 and h10 from the pilot
subcarrier levels.

The received symbols at each of the receive inputs can be computed as follows:

For the case of pilot subcarriers relative to the null subcarriers:

Since the magnitude and phase of pilot subcarriers is known, the s-terms can be
factored out and the elements of the channel matrix are determined. Given the channel
matrix, the received signals can be equalized and restored according to:
Note that the originally transmitted signals can be restored perfectly if there’s a perfect
estimation of the channel matrix. One case that does not work due to a singularity in the
matrix inversion is when all of the channel elements are equal or correlated:

The denominator of the leading term associated with matrix inversion determinant will
equal zero, causing the singularity. Therefore, MIMO systems operate the best when the
individual channel elements are not correlated.

The spatial-multiplexing technique associated with MIMO is another method that

minimizes the effects of a multipath communication channel through its redundancy
and channel-equalization properties.

Brian Petted is Technology Leader at Laird Connectivity.

References
1. Diagram after: “MIMO Channel Modeling and Emulation Test Challenges,” K.Bertlin, Agilent
Technologies, 2008.
2. C. Oestges and B. Clerckx, “MIMO Wireless Communications,” Academic Press, 2007.
3. B. Holter, “On the Capacity of the MIMO Channel- A Tutorial Introduction,” Norwegian
University of Science and Technology, Department of Telecommunications, O.S.Bragstads plass
2B, N-7491 Trondheim, Norway.

0 COMMENTS

RELATED