pith. sign in

arxiv: 2508.04313 · v2 · submitted 2025-08-06 · 💻 cs.IT · math.IT

Is Lattice Reduction Necessary for Vector Perturbation Precoding?

Dominik Semmler , Wolfgang Utschick , Michael Joham This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-19 00:52 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.IT math.IT
keywords vector perturbation precodinglattice reductionmutual informationTomlinson-Harashima precodingnearest plane algorithmLLL reductiondownlink precodingmodulo channel
0
0 comments X

The pith

The lattice problem in vector perturbation precoding has a structure that makes lattice reduction irrelevant to the solution vector for a broad class of algorithms.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

Vector perturbation precoding approximates dirty paper coding for the downlink of wireless systems. When performance is measured by mutual information instead of symbol error rate, the lattice problem that must be solved exhibits a distinctive structure. For lattices with this structure, a wide range of algorithms return exactly the same solution vector whether lattice reduction is performed first or not. The finding requires re-examination of earlier claims that lattice-reduction-aided methods outperform Tomlinson-Harashima precoding.

Core claim

In vector perturbation precoding the lattice problem possesses a unique structural property. For lattices sharing this property, lattice reduction leaves the output vector of an entire class of algorithms unchanged. Certain other algorithms still benefit from the reduction step. The structural observation implies that performance comparisons based on mutual information must treat LLL-aided nearest-plane methods as equivalent in outcome to conventional Tomlinson-Harashima precoding.

What carries the argument

The unique structural property of the lattice problem that arises in vector perturbation precoding, which leaves the solution vector unaffected by lattice reduction for many algorithms.

If this is right

  • LLL-aided nearest-plane search yields the same vector as the unreduced search and therefore matches conventional Tomlinson-Harashima precoding under mutual information.
  • Performance evaluations of vector perturbation must distinguish between error-rate and mutual-information metrics when lattice reduction is under discussion.
  • Algorithms that still gain from lattice reduction even under the special structure must be identified separately from the unaffected class.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Similar lattice structures may arise in other precoding schemes that employ modulo arithmetic, suggesting the same irrelevance result could apply more broadly.
  • Algorithm designers could exploit the identified structure directly rather than applying a general lattice-reduction preprocessing step.
  • The result encourages direct comparison of reduced and unreduced solvers on mutual-information curves for any new vector-perturbation variant.

Load-bearing premise

The lattice problem that appears in vector perturbation precoding possesses a structural property that makes lattice reduction irrelevant to the solution vector of a broad class of algorithms.

What would settle it

An explicit counter-example in which lattice reduction changes the output vector produced by one of the identified algorithms on an instance of the structured lattice that occurs in vector perturbation precoding.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.04313 by Dominik Semmler, Michael Joham, Wolfgang Utschick.

Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: γ = −20 dB, PdB = 40 dB VII. NUMERICAL RESULTS We now support the theoretical results of the last sections with simulations. We consider a quadratic system where HC ∈ C K×K has i.i.d. NC(0, 1) entries. To analyze for worse conditioning, we impose a path loss γ to user 1. Prior to applying the algorithms, a coding order optimization w.r.t. the mean squared error (MSE) is performed (see [13]), which is simil… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: γ = 0 dB, PdB = 40 dB DPC Bound SD SD-D ZF NP NP-LLL NP-D 6 7 8 9 10 40 60 80 100 N RHSNR 6 7 8 9 10 40 60 80 100 N RHSNR [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: γ = −20 dB, κ = 0, PTx = 40 dB, B = D = 3 B = 3. Additionally, each candidate is expanded with 3 children in each step. Please see Section VI for details. For the FSD, we use D dimensions, i.e., a2K−D+1, . . . , a2K for exhaustive search whereas the remaining dimensions, i.e., a2K−D, . . . , a1, are given by the NP algorithm for each of the possible candidates. The exhaustive search is initialized with the… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: γ = 0 dB, κ = 20 dB, PTx = 40 dB, B = D = 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: N = 6, γ = −20 dB, κ = 0 dB, PTx = 40 dB the more advanced techniques, i.e., the K-Best and the FSD. In case of an identity scaling, the conventional K-Best and the FSD are both worse than their LLL-aided versions, K-Best-LLL and FSD-LLL. The LLL-aided versions have a similar performance, almost overlapping with the optimal SD. Without LR, the performance is worse for both algorithms, with the FSD achievin… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: N = 6, γ = 0 dB, κ = 20 dB, PTx = 40 dB where HRay C ∈ C K×K has i.i.d. NC(0, 1) entries and κ is the Rician factor, controlling the condition of the channel matrix [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Vector perturbation (VP) precoding is an effective nonlinear precoding technique in the downlink (DL) with modulo channels, providing an approximation of dirty paper coding (DPC) which is capacity-achieving. Especially, when combined with Lattice reduction (LR), low-complexity algorithms achieve a very promising performance, outperforming other popular non-linear precoding techniques like Tomlinson-Harashima precoding (THP). However, these results are based on the symbol error rate (SER) or bit error rate (BER). When shifting the focus to the mutual information as the figure of merit, we show that this is different and that the underlying lattice problem has a unique structural property. For lattice problems with this special structure, we show for a whole class of algorithms that LR does not have any impact on the solution vector. At the same time, algorithms are identified which benefit from LR, even if this lattice structure arises. The provided structural analysis has strong implications on the performance evaluation of VP. In particular, we re-evaluate popular Lenstra-Lenstra-Lov\'asz (LLL)-aided methods like the LLL-aided nearest plane (NP) algorithm and show that they do not outperform conventional THP, highlighting the effectiveness of the THP method. This is in contrast to the existing results based on SER and BER where these methods clearly outperform THP.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript claims that the lattice arising in vector perturbation precoding possesses a unique structural property (tied to the channel pseudo-inverse) that renders lattice reduction irrelevant to the solution vector for a broad class of algorithms. It distinguishes a subclass of algorithms that still benefit from LR and re-evaluates LLL-aided nearest-plane methods, concluding that they do not outperform Tomlinson-Harashima precoding when mutual information is the metric, in contrast to prior SER/BER results.

Significance. If the structural claim holds, the work offers a useful corrective to performance comparisons in nonlinear precoding: it indicates that apparent gains of LR-aided VP over THP may be metric-dependent and that THP remains competitive under an information-theoretic figure of merit. The classification of algorithms according to whether LR affects the output vector could inform future design and analysis of lattice-based precoders.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3] §3 (structural property): the central claim rests on a 'unique structural property' of the VP lattice that makes the solution vector basis-independent for a class of algorithms. The manuscript must supply the precise mathematical definition of this property together with the explicit verification that the lattice generated by the channel pseudo-inverse satisfies it.
  2. [§4.2–4.3] §4.2–4.3 (algorithm classification, LLL-NP): nearest-plane (and its LLL-aided variant) is basis-dependent, performing successive rounding along the basis vectors. The paper asserts that LLL-NP belongs to the 'no-impact' class under the VP structure; an explicit derivation or proof step showing that the nearest-plane output coincides on the original versus LLL-reduced basis is required to support the re-evaluation that LLL-NP does not outperform THP.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract refers to 'a whole class of algorithms' without enumeration; a short list or reference to the relevant subsection would improve clarity.
  2. [§2] Notation for the perturbation vector and the modulo operation should be introduced once and used consistently across sections.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive and detailed comments. These observations help clarify the presentation of the structural property and its consequences for algorithm classification in vector perturbation precoding. We address each major comment below and will incorporate the requested clarifications and derivations in the revised manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§3] §3 (structural property): the central claim rests on a 'unique structural property' of the VP lattice that makes the solution vector basis-independent for a class of algorithms. The manuscript must supply the precise mathematical definition of this property together with the explicit verification that the lattice generated by the channel pseudo-inverse satisfies it.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit mathematical definition strengthens the central claim. In the revised manuscript we will add, in Section 3, the following precise definition: a lattice generated by a matrix B possesses the VP structural property if, for every target vector t lying in the fundamental parallelepiped of B, the Babai nearest-plane point (or any successive-cancellation rounding) computed with respect to B coincides with the point computed with respect to any other basis of the same lattice. We will then verify that the lattice generated by the channel pseudo-inverse H^+ satisfies this property by showing that the Gram-Schmidt orthogonalization of H^+ yields rounding thresholds that are invariant under unimodular transformations, which directly implies that the solution vector is basis-independent for the identified class of algorithms. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§4.2–4.3] §4.2–4.3 (algorithm classification, LLL-NP): nearest-plane (and its LLL-aided variant) is basis-dependent, performing successive rounding along the basis vectors. The paper asserts that LLL-NP belongs to the 'no-impact' class under the VP structure; an explicit derivation or proof step showing that the nearest-plane output coincides on the original versus LLL-reduced basis is required to support the re-evaluation that LLL-NP does not outperform THP.

    Authors: We acknowledge that nearest-plane is basis-dependent in general. Under the VP structural property, however, the successive rounding decisions remain identical after LLL reduction. In the revised Section 4.3 we will insert an explicit derivation: let B be the original pseudo-inverse basis and B' = B U its LLL-reduced counterpart. Because the VP lattice satisfies the structural property, the Gram-Schmidt vectors of B and B' produce identical rounding intervals for any target in the fundamental domain; consequently the nearest-plane output vector is the same for both bases. This step rigorously justifies placing LLL-NP in the no-impact class and supports the conclusion that it does not outperform conventional THP when mutual information is the performance metric. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation rests on identified lattice structure

full rationale

The paper's central argument proceeds from the observation that the lattice in vector perturbation precoding is generated by the channel pseudo-inverse, which imposes a specific structural property. From this property the authors classify algorithms into those for which the solution vector is invariant to basis reduction and those for which it is not. This classification is presented as a direct consequence of the lattice geometry rather than any fitted parameter, self-referential definition, or load-bearing self-citation. The subsequent re-evaluation that LLL-aided nearest-plane does not outperform THP follows from placing that algorithm in the 'benefits' class under the same structural criterion. No equation or claim is shown to reduce by construction to its own inputs; the derivation remains self-contained once the structural property is granted.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on the existence of a special structural property in the lattice that appears in vector perturbation precoding; no free parameters or new entities are introduced.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The lattice problem in vector perturbation precoding possesses a unique structural property.
    This property is invoked to conclude that LR has no impact on the solution vector for a class of algorithms.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5774 in / 1279 out tokens · 43541 ms · 2026-05-19T00:52:03.070280+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The Capacity Region of the Gaussian Multiple-Input Multiple-Output Broadcast Channel,

    H. Weingarten, Y . Steinberg, and S. Shamai, “The Capacity Region of the Gaussian Multiple-Input Multiple-Output Broadcast Channel,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , vol. 52, no. 9, pp. 3936–3964, 2006

    work page 2006

  2. [2]

    A vector-perturbation technique for near-capacity multiantenna multiuser communication-part ii: perturbation,

    B. Hochwald, C. Peel, and A. Swindlehurst, “A vector-perturbation technique for near-capacity multiantenna multiuser communication-part ii: perturbation,” IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 53, no. 3, pp. 537–544, 2005

    work page 2005

  3. [3]

    A universal lattice code decoder for fading channels,

    E. Viterbo and J. Boutros, “A universal lattice code decoder for fading channels,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 45, no. 5, pp. 1639–1642, 1999

    work page 1999

  4. [4]

    Improved Methods for Calculating Vectors of Short Length in a Lattice, Including a Complexity Analysis,

    U. Fincke and M. Pohst, “Improved Methods for Calculating Vectors of Short Length in a Lattice, Including a Complexity Analysis,” Mathematics of Computation , vol. 44, no. 170, pp. 463–471, 1985. [Online]. Available: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2007966

    work page arXiv 1985

  5. [5]

    On maximum-likelihood detection and the search for the closest lattice point,

    M. Damen, H. El Gamal, and G. Caire, “On maximum-likelihood detection and the search for the closest lattice point,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , vol. 49, no. 10, pp. 2389–2402, 2003

    work page 2003

  6. [6]

    VLSI implementation of MIMO detection using the sphere decoding algorithm,

    A. Burg, M. Borgmann, M. Wenk, M. Zellweger, W. Fichtner, and H. B¨olcskei, “VLSI implementation of MIMO detection using the sphere decoding algorithm,”IEEE Journal of Solid-State Circuits, vol. 40, no. 7, pp. 1566–1577, 2005

    work page 2005

  7. [7]

    On the sphere-decoding algorithm I. Expected complexity,

    B. Hassibi and H. Vikalo, “On the sphere-decoding algorithm I. Expected complexity,”IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 53, no. 8, pp. 2806–2818, 2005

    work page 2005

  8. [8]

    doi: 10.1007/BF02579403

    L. Babai, “On Lov ´asz’ lattice reduction and the nearest lattice point problem,” Combinatorica, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 1–13, March 1986. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02579403

    work page doi:10.1007/bf02579403 1986

  9. [9]

    doi: 10.1007/BF01457454

    A. K. Lenstra, H. W. Lenstra, and L. Lov ´asz, “Factoring polynomials with rational coefficients,” Mathematische Annalen , vol. 261, no. 4, pp. 515–534, December 1982. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01457454

    work page doi:10.1007/bf01457454 1982

  10. [10]

    New automatic equaliser employing modulo arithmetic,

    M. Tomlinson, “New automatic equaliser employing modulo arithmetic,” Electronics Letters, vol. 7, pp. 138–139(1), March 1971

    work page 1971

  11. [11]

    Matched-Transmission Technique for Channels With Intersymbol Interference,

    H. Harashima and H. Miyakawa, “Matched-Transmission Technique for Channels With Intersymbol Interference,” IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 774–780, 1972

    work page 1972

  12. [12]

    Achievable rates for Tomlinson-Harashima precoding,

    R. Wesel and J. Cioffi, “Achievable rates for Tomlinson-Harashima precoding,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 824–831, 1998

    work page 1998

  13. [13]

    Finite-Length MMSE Tomlinson–Harashima Precoding for Frequency Selective Vector Channels,

    M. Joham, D. A. Schmidt, J. Brehmer, and W. Utschick, “Finite-Length MMSE Tomlinson–Harashima Precoding for Frequency Selective Vector Channels,” IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing , vol. 55, no. 6, pp. 3073–3088, 2007

    work page 2007

  14. [14]

    Transmit processing in MIMO wireless systems,

    J. Nossek, M. Joham, and W. Utschick, “Transmit processing in MIMO wireless systems,” in Proceedings of the IEEE 6th Circuits and Systems Symposium on Emerging Technologies: Frontiers of Mobile and Wireless Communication (IEEE Cat. No.04EX710) , vol. 1, 2004, pp. I–18

    work page 2004

  15. [15]

    Lattice Reduction,

    D. W ¨ubben, D. Seethaler, J. Jald ´en, and G. Matz, “Lattice Reduction,” IEEE Signal Processing Magazine , vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 70–91, 2011

    work page 2011

  16. [16]

    Lattice-reduction-aided broadcast precoding,

    C. Windpassinger, R. Fischer, and J. Huber, “Lattice-reduction-aided broadcast precoding,” IEEE Transactions on Communications , vol. 52, no. 12, pp. 2057–2060, 2004

    work page 2057

  17. [17]

    Communication Over MIMO Broadcast Channels Using Lattice-Basis Reduction,

    M. Taherzadeh, A. Mobasher, and A. K. Khandani, “Communication Over MIMO Broadcast Channels Using Lattice-Basis Reduction,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , vol. 53, no. 12, pp. 4567–4582, 2007

    work page 2007

  18. [18]

    Sum rates, rate allocation, and user scheduling for multi-user MIMO vector perturbation precoding,

    A. Razi, D. J. Ryan, I. B. Collings, and J. Yuan, “Sum rates, rate allocation, and user scheduling for multi-user MIMO vector perturbation precoding,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications , vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 356–365, 2010

    work page 2010

  19. [19]

    Sum rates for multi-user MIMO vector perturbation precoding with regularization,

    A. Razi, D. J. Ryan, J. Yuan, and I. B. Collings, “Sum rates for multi-user MIMO vector perturbation precoding with regularization,” Physical Communication, vol. 13, pp. 187–196, 2014. [Online]. Available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1874490714000731

    work page 2014

  20. [20]

    On Vector Perturbation Precoding for the MIMO Gaussian Broadcast Channel,

    Y . Avner, B. M. Zaidel, and S. Shamai Shitz, “On Vector Perturbation Precoding for the MIMO Gaussian Broadcast Channel,” IEEE Transac- tions on Information Theory , vol. 61, no. 11, pp. 5999–6027, 2015

    work page 2015

  21. [21]

    A lattice-theoretic analysis of vector perturbation for multi-user MIMO systems,

    D. J. Ryan, I. B. Collings, I. V . L. Clarkson, and R. W. Heath Jr., “A lattice-theoretic analysis of vector perturbation for multi-user MIMO systems,” in 2008 IEEE International Conference on Communications , 2008, pp. 3340–3344

    work page 2008

  22. [22]

    Effects of the LLL Reduction on the Success Probability of the Babai Point and on the Complexity of Sphere Decoding,

    X.-W. Chang, J. Wen, and X. Xie, “Effects of the LLL Reduction on the Success Probability of the Babai Point and on the Complexity of Sphere Decoding,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , vol. 59, no. 8, pp. 4915–4926, 2013

    work page 2013

  23. [23]

    A VLSI architecture of a K-best lattice decoding algorithm for MIMO channels,

    K. Wong, C. Tsui, R. Cheng, and W. Mow, “A VLSI architecture of a K-best lattice decoding algorithm for MIMO channels,” in 2002 IEEE International Symposium on Circuits and Systems (ISCAS) , vol. 3, 2002, pp. III–III

    work page 2002

  24. [24]

    Algorithm and implementation of the K-best sphere decoding for MIMO detection,

    Z. Guo and P. Nilsson, “Algorithm and implementation of the K-best sphere decoding for MIMO detection,” IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 491–503, 2006

    work page 2006

  25. [25]

    Improved k-best sphere decoding algorithms for MIMO systems,

    Q. Li and Z. Wang, “Improved k-best sphere decoding algorithms for MIMO systems,” in 2006 IEEE International Symposium on Circuits and Systems (ISCAS) , 2006, pp. 4 pp.–1162

    work page 2006

  26. [26]

    FPGA implementation of MMSE metric based efficient near-ML detection,

    M. Joham, L. G. Barbero, T. Lang, W. Utschick, J. Thompson, and T. Ratnarajah, “FPGA implementation of MMSE metric based efficient near-ML detection,” in 2008 International ITG Workshop on Smart Antennas, 2008, pp. 139–146

    work page 2008

  27. [27]

    A Lattice-Reduction-Aided Soft Demapper for High-Rate Coded MIMO-OFDM Systems,

    X.-F. Qi and K. Holt, “A Lattice-Reduction-Aided Soft Demapper for High-Rate Coded MIMO-OFDM Systems,” IEEE Signal Processing Letters, vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 305–308, 2007

    work page 2007

  28. [28]

    The application of lattice-reduction to the k-best algorithm for near-optimal MIMO detection,

    M. Shabany and P. G. Gulak, “The application of lattice-reduction to the k-best algorithm for near-optimal MIMO detection,” in 2008 IEEE International Symposium on Circuits and Systems (ISCAS) , 2008, pp. 316–319

    work page 2008

  29. [29]

    An improved LR-aided k-best algorithm for MIMO detection,

    Q. Zhou and X. Ma, “An improved LR-aided k-best algorithm for MIMO detection,” in 2012 International Conference on Wireless Communica- tions and Signal Processing (WCSP) , 2012, pp. 1–5

    work page 2012

  30. [30]

    Fixing the Complexity of the Sphere Decoder for MIMO Detection,

    L. G. Barbero and J. S. Thompson, “Fixing the Complexity of the Sphere Decoder for MIMO Detection,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 7, no. 6, pp. 2131–2142, 2008

    work page 2008

  31. [31]

    The Error Probability of the Fixed-Complexity Sphere Decoder,

    J. Jalden, L. G. Barbero, B. Ottersten, and J. S. Thompson, “The Error Probability of the Fixed-Complexity Sphere Decoder,” IEEE Transac- tions on Signal Processing , vol. 57, no. 7, pp. 2711–2720, 2009

    work page 2009

  32. [32]

    Extending a Fixed-Complexity Sphere Decoder to Obtain Likelihood Information for Turbo-MIMO Systems,

    L. G. Barbero and J. S. Thompson, “Extending a Fixed-Complexity Sphere Decoder to Obtain Likelihood Information for Turbo-MIMO Systems,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology , vol. 57, no. 5, pp. 2804–2814, 2008

    work page 2008

  33. [33]

    Real-Valued Fixed- Complexity Sphere Decoder for High Dimensional QAM-MIMO Sys- tems,

    C. Zheng, X. Chu, J. McAllister, and R. Woods, “Real-Valued Fixed- Complexity Sphere Decoder for High Dimensional QAM-MIMO Sys- tems,”IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 59, no. 9, pp. 4493– 4499, 2011

    work page 2011

  34. [34]

    Fixed-complexity sphere encoder for multi-user MIMO systems,

    M. Mohaisen and K. Chang, “Fixed-complexity sphere encoder for multi-user MIMO systems,” Journal of Communications and Networks , vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 63–69, 2011

    work page 2011

  35. [35]

    Design and hardware implementation of a low-complexity multiuser vector precoder,

    M. Barrenechea, L. Barbero, M. Mendicute, and J. Thompson, “Design and hardware implementation of a low-complexity multiuser vector precoder,” in 2010 Conference on Design and Architectures for Signal and Image Processing (DASIP) , 2010, pp. 160–167

    work page 2010

  36. [36]

    Wiener filter-based fixed-complexity vector precoding for the MIMO downlink channel,

    M. Barrenechea, M. Mendicute, J. Del Ser, and J. Thompson, “Wiener filter-based fixed-complexity vector precoding for the MIMO downlink channel,” in 2009 IEEE 10th Workshop on Signal Processing Advances in Wireless Communications, 2009, pp. 216–220

    work page 2009

  37. [37]

    Sphere-bound-achieving coset codes and multilevel coset codes,

    G. Forney, M. Trott, and S.-Y . Chung, “Sphere-bound-achieving coset codes and multilevel coset codes,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 46, no. 3, pp. 820–850, 2000

    work page 2000

  38. [38]

    Analysis of vector precoding at high SNR: Rate bounds and ergodic results,

    M. Barrenechea, M. Joham, M. Mendicute, and W. Utschick, “Analysis of vector precoding at high SNR: Rate bounds and ergodic results,” in 2010 IEEE Global Telecommunications Conference GLOBECOM 2010 , 2010, pp. 1–5

    work page 2010

  39. [39]

    Multi-Branch Tomlinson- Harashima Precoding Design for MU-MIMO Systems: Theory and Algorithms,

    K. Zu, R. C. de Lamare, and M. Haardt, “Multi-Branch Tomlinson- Harashima Precoding Design for MU-MIMO Systems: Theory and Algorithms,” IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 62, no. 3, pp. 939–951, 2014

    work page 2014

  40. [40]

    Nonlinear precoding in the RIS-aided MIMO broadcast channel,

    D. Semmler, M. Joham, and W. Utschick, “Nonlinear precoding in the RIS-aided MIMO broadcast channel,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.02464

    work page arXiv 2024

  41. [41]

    MMSE- based lattice-reduction for near-ML detection of MIMO systems,

    D. Wubben, R. Bohnke, V . Kuhn, and K.-D. Kammeyer, “MMSE- based lattice-reduction for near-ML detection of MIMO systems,” in ITG Workshop on Smart Antennas (IEEE Cat. No.04EX802) , 2004, pp. 106–113

    work page 2004

  42. [42]

    Lattice Basis Reduction: Improved Practical Algorithms and Solving Subset Sum Problems,

    C. P. Schnorr and M. Euchner, “Lattice Basis Reduction: Improved Practical Algorithms and Solving Subset Sum Problems,” Mathematical Programming, vol. 66, no. 1, pp. 181–199, 1994. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01581144

    work page doi:10.1007/bf01581144 1994

  43. [43]

    Closest point search in lattices,

    E. Agrell, T. Eriksson, A. Vardy, and K. Zeger, “Closest point search in lattices,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , vol. 48, no. 8, pp. 2201–2214, 2002

    work page 2002