On Non-coherent MIMO Channels in the Wideband Regime: Capacity and Reliability

Lizhong Zheng; Muriel Medard; Siddharth Ray

REVIEW

On Non-coherent MIMO Channels in the Wideband Regime: Capacity and Reliability

Siddharth Ray, Muriel Medard, Lizhong Zheng

Information Theory · Submitted 3 Mar 2006 · 26 references

Pith's verdict: Theorem 3 is internally inconsistent as stated—the same l scaling claims a continuum of sublinear exponents—but the underlying MIMO extension and the Peaky Gaussian scheme are real contributions worth a serious revision.

T0 · AI review

How this review was made: An AI referee (deepseek-v4-flash) read the paper on August 28, 2026 and answered a fixed list of questions about it. T0 is the starting level every paper gets. The levels describe how deeply Pith has checked the paper, never the authors.

T0 AI review An AI read the paper and answered a fixed list of questions.
T1 Audit Automatic checks that the references and files the paper relies on exist and match.
T2 Compute The paper's code or calculations re-run with the same results.
T3 Formal statement The claims written out in a formal math language a computer can read.
T4 Proof Those claims proved, and the proof checked by computer.

How Pith checks papers →

· 2 major objections · 4 minor · Ask about this paper · The compiled record · Read the full review →

Challenge this review Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗

Cite ▾

arXiv IDcs/0603018 (version 1)

Pith IDLQLTFSD7, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review

CitationLizhong Zheng, Muriel Medard, Siddharth Ray. "On Non-coherent MIMO Channels in the Wideband Regime: Capacity and Reliability." arXiv:cs/0603018 (2006). https://pith.science/paper/LQLTFSD7

Cite this reviewBibTeX for Pith's review of this paper

Claim paper

Why Pith says this

Highlight any text to comment on it.

Editor's note

read the letter

Let me cut to the chase: the central capacity theorem (Theorem 3) is not right as stated. For a fixed coherence-length scaling l ~ SNR^{-2β}, the 'if and only if' is satisfied by every α ∈ (β-ε, β) by taking σ = β-α. The theorem then asserts the same channel has capacity rSNR - c SNR^{1+α} + O(SNR^{1+α+ε}) for all those α, which is impossible. Worse, the paper's own achievability bound (Theorem 2) with α'' = β - σ/2 gives a lower bound rSNR - c SNR^{1+β-σ/2} + ... that is strictly larger than the claimed value with α = β - σ for small SNR. So the theorem contradicts itself. The fix is natural: α is not a free parameter; for l = K SNR^{-2β}, the sublinear exponent should be β (capped at 1), as the paper itself uses in Section 4 with ν. The statement needs to be rewritten as a two-sided bound for a fixed β, or as a statement about the class of l scalings.

Now the credit. The paper does real work: it extends the SISO analysis of Zheng, Tse, and Medard to MIMO with exact constants. The Peaky Gaussian scheme and its near-optimality (Theorems 1 and 2, if read carefully) are legitimate and well-argued. The i.i.d. extreme result—capacity rSNR - rSNR/log(r/SNR) with on-off signaling—is a clean contribution. The error exponent analysis, despite its issues, is a serious attempt to capture the role of r·t diversity and coherence length in the wideband regime. These are useful pieces.

Soft spots beyond Theorem 3: Lemma 4's lower bound on the error exponent rests on an explicitly unproven conjecture (that Gaussian noise minimizes the error exponent), so the reliability claims are conditional. The outage-dominance argument is a heuristic; it doesn't rise to the level of a proof. And the discussion after equation (12) states an l-dependence that doesn't follow from the formula. The reader's report underweighted the Theorem 3 problem; the stress-test is correct.

Who is this for? People working on wideband non-coherent MIMO, low-SNR capacity, and energy efficiency. With Theorem 3 fixed, it would be a standard reference. Without the fix, it can mislead. I'd send it to peer review, but with a clear request: restate Theorem 3 properly, prove or label the error-exponent conjecture, and tighten the outage discussion. The core ideas are worth preserving.

What would settle it

Evaluate the random-coding error exponent of the effective channel in (25) with the true distribution of $\vec{v}'_i$ -- a Gaussian mixture coming from the MMSE estimation error times the Gaussian input -- instead of replacing it by i.i.d. $\mathcal{CN}(0,I_r)$, and compare the result with the claimed $rt\log\left(1+\frac{\rho t\,\mathrm{SNR}^{-[2\nu-\min\{1,\nu\}]}}{(t+r)^2(1+\rho)}\right)-\rho R$. If the true exponent is measurably smaller at any rate in $[R_{\mathrm{critical}}, C^{\mathrm{block}}_{T,lb}]$, Theorem 4's lower bound is false. For the capacity theorem, an independent check is to compute the non-coherent capacity at $l=\frac{t^2}{(r+t)^2}\,\mathrm{SNR}^{-2\alpha}$ and at $l$ slightly below it and verify that the sublinear exponent jumps as Theorem 3 predicts.

Referee report

Major objections (2)

[Section 3.2, Theorem 3] The "if and only if" statement in Theorem 3 cannot hold as written because, for a fixed coherence-length scaling, the theorem asserts multiple different sublinear exponents for the same capacity. Fix beta in (0,1) and set l = K SNR^{-2beta}, where K = t^2/(r+t)^2. Pick sigma in (0, beta/2), set alpha = beta - sigma and epsilon = beta/2. Then sigma in (0, epsilon) and l = K SNR^{-2(alpha+sigma)}, so Theorem 3 asserts C(SNR) = rSNR - c SNR^{1+beta-sigma} + O(SNR^{1+beta-sigma+beta/2}) with c = r(r+t)/(2t). On the other hand, Theorem 2 with alpha'' = beta - sigma/2 and epsilon'' = sigma/4 is applicable because l = K SNR^{-2beta} >= K SNR^{-2(alpha''+epsilon'')} = K SNR^{-2beta+sigma/2}; it yields C(SNR) >= rSNR - c SNR^{1+beta-sigma/2} + O(SNR^{1+beta-sigma/2+sigma/4}). Since 1+beta-sigma/2 > 1+beta-sigma, the lower bound eventually exceeds the value asserted by Theorem 3, and the O-term in Theorem 3 is o(SNR^{1+beta-sigma}) and cannot absorb the gap. The same issue is visible in Eq. (9): for a fixed l, the displayed range is satisfied by many alpha, each giving a different sublinear exponent. The theorem must be restated with the sublinear exponent tied to the actual scaling exponent beta of l, rather than to an independent parameter alpha with sigma in (0, epsilon).
[Section 4.2, Lemma 4] The proof of Lemma 4 explicitly uses the sentence "We conjecture that this noise distribution also minimizes error exponent" for the effective channel in Eq. (25). The lower bound on E_L_0(rho) in Eq. (37) is obtained under this unproven conjecture, and it is exactly this lower bound that is combined with Eq. (38) to produce the formula for E_r(R) in Theorem 4 and the scaling conclusions in Section 4.1, including the claimed inverse decay in coherence length, the rt diversity factor, and the outage-dominance statement. The references [11,19] cited for a Gaussian-minimizer property concern capacity, not error exponents. Unless the conjecture is proved, Theorem 4 and the reliability claims are not established as stated.

Minor objections (4)

[Section 3.4 and Appendix 3] The statement that on-off signaling is capacity achieving for the i.i.d. non-coherent channel is shown only in the .=. (logarithmic-order) sense; the bounds in Eqs. (96) and (100) differ by a factor of order (log log(1/SNR))^2. Please state explicitly that the characterization is up to lower-order logarithmic factors, not an exact asymptotic expansion.
[Appendix 3] In the computation of I_22(SNR,A), the integration variable t collides with the number of transmit antennas t, and later t* is used for the threshold variable ς*. Please use a neutral symbol such as u for the integration variable to avoid confusion.
[Section 4.1 and Eq. (39)] The notation C^block_{T,lb}(SNR) is used in Theorem 4 before it is defined in Eq. (39). Please reorder the presentation or add a forward reference.
[Appendix 1, proof of Lemma 1] In the upper bound for I(A;Y|Phi), the proof states that the extra constraint does not change the optimal input and that it suffices to consider on-off signals; this is an assertion that needs a short justification rather than being left implicit.

How Pith checks papers → · Full audit of this paper →

The paper

The paper claims

This paper proves an exact low-SNR capacity expansion for non-coherent MIMO with no channel state information: C(SNR)=rSNR - (r(r+t)/(2t))SNR^{1+alpha}+O(SNR^{1+alpha+epsilon}) holds precisely when the coherence length scales as…

The reading

Multiple-antenna communication without channel state information is usually thought to be fundamentally worse than communication with it, but this paper shows exactly when the gap closes in the wideband regime. It establishes an if-and-only-if expansion: $C(\mathrm{SNR}) = r\,\mathrm{SNR} - \frac{r(r+t)}{2t}\,\mathrm{SNR}^{1+\alpha}+O(\mathrm{SNR}^{1+\alpha+\epsilon})$ holds precisely when the coherence length satisfies $l = \frac{t^2}{(r+t)^2}\,\mathrm{SNR}^{-2(\alpha+\sigma)}$, so the non-coherent channel reaches the coherent capacity once coherence is long enough. The paper also exhibits a near-optimal 'Peaky Gaussian' input that transmits Gaussian codewords in only a fraction $\mathrm{SNR}^{1-\alpha}$ of blocks, interpolating between continuous Gaussian signaling at the coherent extreme and flash signaling at the i.i.d. extreme. On the reliability side, it upper-bounds block error probability, showing decay inversely with coherence length and exponentially with the product $rt$, and that outage dominates in the wideband regime. A careful reader should care because this turns an order-of-magnitude picture into parameter-explicit formulas for both capacity and reliability.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by three objects. The first is the sublinear capacity term $\Delta_{t,r}(\mathrm{SNR})=r\,\mathrm{SNR}-C(\mathrm{SNR})$, which measures how slowly capacity approaches the wideband limit $r\,\mathrm{SNR}$; computing its SNR-power order is equivalent to computing capacity in this regime. The second is a family of 'Peaky Gaussian' input distributions: transmit Gaussian signals in only $\delta(\mathrm{SNR})=\mathrm{SNR}^{1-\alpha}$ fraction of coherence blocks, boosting the per-block SNR to $\mathrm{SNR}'=\mathrm{SNR}^{\alpha}$, with $\alpha$ sweeping from the coherent limit ($\alpha=1$, continuous Gaussian) to the i.i.d. non-coherent limit ($\alpha\to0$, flash on-off). The third is the optimal input structure $X=A\Phi$ -- a real nonnegative diagonal amplitude matrix $A$ times an isotropically distributed unitary matrix $\Phi$ -- which lets Lemma 1 convert the capacity lower bound into two necessary conditions on the per-antenna transmitted norm; combining those conditions with the power constraint forces $l > \frac{t^2}{(r+t)^2}\,\mathrm{SNR}^{-2\alpha}$. For the reliability half, the machinery is a training-based effective channel with an MMSE channel estimate $H'$ and noise $V'$ whose covariance is $I_r$; Lemma 4 lower-bounds its random-coding error exponent, assuming that i.i.d. Gaussian noise minimizes that exponent.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is a sharp asymptotic description of the non-coherent Rayleigh block-fading MIMO channel at low SNR. With $t$ transmit and $r$ receive antennas, coherence length $l$, and SNR per degree of freedom, Theorem 3 asserts that for any $\alpha \in (0,1]$ and $\epsilon \in (0,\alpha)$, capacity is $C(\mathrm{SNR})=r\,\mathrm{SNR} - \frac{r(r+t)}{2t}\,\mathrm{SNR}^{1+\alpha} + O(\mathrm{SNR}^{1+\alpha+\epsilon})$ if and only if there is a $\sigma \in (0,\epsilon)$ with $l = \frac{t^2}{(r+t)^2}\,\mathrm{SNR}^{-2(\alpha+\sigma)}$. This pins the sublinear term $\Delta_{t,r}(\mathrm{SNR})=r\,\mathrm{SNR}-C(\mathrm{SNR})$ to a specific power of SNR for each coherence length, identifies the threshold $l_{\min} = \frac{t^2}{(r+t)^2}\,\mathrm{SNR}^{-2\alpha}$ below which the claimed near-coherent rate is impossible, and shows Peaky Gaussian signaling achieves $C(\mathrm{SNR})$ whenever $l$ exceeds $l_G = \frac{t^2}{(r+t)^2}\,\mathrm{SNR}^{-2(\alpha+\epsilon)}$. In the limit $\alpha=1$, non-coherent capacity matches the coherent expansion when $l \ge \frac{t^2}{(r+t)^2}\,\mathrm{SNR}^{-2}$; as $\alpha$ tends to $0$, the paper computes the i.i.d. extreme capacity $C(\mathrm{SNR}) \doteq r\,\mathrm{SNR} - \frac{r\,\mathrm{SNR}}{\log(r/\mathrm{SNR})}$, achieved by on-off flash signaling. For error probability, Theorem 4 gives the random-coding exponent for Peaky Gaussian inputs, yielding $P_{\mathrm{block}}^{\mathrm{error}} \sim \mathrm{SNR}^{1-\min\{1,\nu\}} \left(\frac{R}{l\,\mathrm{SNR}^{\min\{1,\nu\}}}\right)^{rt}$ in the dominant rate region.

Load-bearing premise

The capacity expansion is a consequence of the block-fading model and the trace power constraint; the delicate load-bearing premise for the reliability half is the unproven conjecture that the error exponent of the estimated channel in equation (25) is minimized by independent Gaussian noise of covariance $I_r$, so the claimed lower bound on error probability would collapse if a different noise distribution produced a smaller exponent.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the coherence length satisfies $l \ge \frac{t^2}{(r+t)^2}\,\mathrm{SNR}^{-2}$, the non-coherent channel achieves the same low-SNR capacity expansion as the coherent channel, and ordinary continuous Gaussian inputs are optimal.
For shorter coherence, the sublinear term is of order $\mathrm{SNR}^{1+\alpha}$ with $\alpha$ determined by $l$; hence the gap to the wideband limit and the bandwidth penalty are exactly quantified as functions of $l$, $t$, $r$, and $\mathrm{SNR}$.
Energy efficiency improves monotonically with coherence: in the intermediate regime $\log(E_n/N_0)$ scales like $-\sqrt{1/l}$, so quadrupling the coherence length is needed to halve the excess energy per nat.
Block error probability for Peaky Gaussian signaling decays inversely with coherence length ($(1/l)^{rt-1}$ or $(1/l)^{rt}$) and exponentially with the product $rt$, so transmit antennas matter as much as receive antennas for reliability.
Critical and cut-off rates are much smaller than capacity, and outage dominates the error probability in the wideband regime, as it does at high SNR.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The iff statement in Theorem 3 is an asymptotic equivalence at the level of dominant exponents; at realistic finite SNR, the $O(\mathrm{SNR}^{1+\alpha+\epsilon})$ terms could be comparable to the sublinear term, so the threshold $l_{\min}$ should be read as a scaling law rather than a precise operating point.
Because the error-probability result depends on the unproven Gaussian-noise-minimizer conjecture while the capacity result does not, one can separately test reliability claims by simulating the training-based channel's error exponent; if the conjecture fails, the capacity conclusions still stand.
A practical design consequence the authors do not spell out is that when coherence is short, wideband MIMO should use sparse, peaky transmission rather than uniform spreading or training; training-based schemes incur a rate penalty of order $\mathrm{SNR}^2$ and are poor in exactly the regime this paper studies.
The same expansion suggests a testable extension: unequal per-antenna power or correlated fading should shift only the prefactor $t/(r+t)^2$ and the exponent $\alpha$, so measuring capacity versus coherence length can reveal the effective number of diversity degrees of freedom.

Original abstract

We consider a multiple-input, multiple-output (MIMO) wideband Rayleigh block fading channel where the channel state is unknown to both the transmitter and the receiver and there is only an average power constraint on the input. We compute the capacity and analyze its dependence on coherence length, number of antennas and receive signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) per degree of freedom. We establish conditions on the coherence length and number of antennas for the non-coherent channel to have a "near coherent" performance in the wideband regime. We also propose a signaling scheme that is near-capacity achieving in this regime. We compute the error probability for this wideband non-coherent MIMO channel and study its dependence on SNR, number of transmit and receive antennas and coherence length. We show that error probability decays inversely with coherence length and exponentially with the product of the number of transmit and receive antennas. Moreover, channel outage dominates error probability in the wideband regime. We also show that the critical as well as cut-off rates are much smaller than channel capacity in this regime.

The compiled record

The paper's own sentences, arranged, kept beside the review and separate from it. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

Compiled by classifier-1.13-20260917 via OpenRouter, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 6,192 input tokens, $0.0003 reported.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.03 · states limitation 0.25 · human participants 0.01 · controlled comparison 0.11 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.69 · compares with prior results 0.28 · mentions code or data availability 0.02.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v1. Results and the main claim are underlined; show every role.

We consider a multiple-input, multiple-output (MIMO) wideband Rayleigh block fading channel where the channel state is unknown to both the transmitter and the receiver and there is only an average power constraint on the input. We compute the capacity and analyze its dependence on coherence length, number of antennas and receive signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) per degree of freedom. We establish conditions on the coherence length and number of antennas for the non-coherent channel to have a "near coherent" performance in the wideband regime. We also propose a signaling scheme that is near-capacity achieving in this regime. We compute the error probability for this wideband non-coherent MIMO channel and study its dependence on SNR, number of transmit and receive antennas and coherence length. We show that error probability decays inversely with coherence length and exponentially with the product of the number of transmit and receive antennas. Moreover, channel outage dominates error probability in the wideband regime. We also show that the critical as well as cut-off rates are much smaller than channel capacity in this regime.

background contribution method result interpretation main claim

What the classifier reports for each sentence. The number is the probability it gave the label.
#	sentence	role	the authors' own work	states the main conclusion	strength
s0	We consider a multiple-input, multiple-output (MIMO) wideband Rayleigh block fading channel where the channel state is unknown to both the transmitter and the receiver and there is only an average power constraint on the input.	background 0.77	0.21	0.03	asserted 0.84
s1	We compute the capacity and analyze its dependence on coherence length, number of antennas and receive signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) per degree of freedom.	contribution 0.97	0.95	0.08	asserted 0.99
s2	We establish conditions on the coherence length and number of antennas for the non-coherent channel to have a "near coherent" performance in the wideband regime.	result 0.70	0.95	0.22	asserted 1.00
s3	We also propose a signaling scheme that is near-capacity achieving in this regime.	contribution 0.86	0.95	0.13	asserted 0.93
s4	We compute the error probability for this wideband non-coherent MIMO channel and study its dependence on SNR, number of transmit and receive antennas and coherence length.	contribution 0.94	0.96	0.07	asserted 0.99
s5	We show that error probability decays inversely with coherence length and exponentially with the product of the number of transmit and receive antennas.	result 1.00	0.94	0.23	asserted 1.00
s6	Moreover, channel outage dominates error probability in the wideband regime.	result 0.97	0.94	0.15	asserted 1.00
s7	We also show that the critical as well as cut-off rates are much smaller than channel capacity in this regime.	result 1.00	0.93	0.12	asserted 1.00

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: theoretical result 1.00 · evidence from proof or derivation 1.00.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read

arXiv listing abstract v1

not examined

full text
figures and tables
references and citing sentences
relations to other papers

levels run

P abstract

not run

S sections
T body sentences
C citations
R cross-paper relations

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. Every number in the measurements table is the authors', checked by code. Record as JSON

Figures

**Figure 1.** Sublinear capacity term. 4

**Figure 2.** Wideband capacity. coherent” performance. Note that since bandwidth penalty increases with decreasing coherence length, the channel at the non-coherent extreme (i.i.d Rayleigh fading non-coherent channel) has to incur the largest bandwidth penalty. At low SNR, channel estimates become unreliable. Hence, even for slowly varying channels, estimating the channel at the receiver may not be possible. When we have multiple antennas at the receiver as well as the transmitter, estimation becomes much more difficult since there are multiple channel coefficients that need to be estimated.…

**Figure 3.** Random coding error exponent for the non-coherent MIMO channel at low SNR. Let us consider the third region over which Er(R) is positive, region C: R ∈ [C block T,lb (SNR), Cblock(SNR)]. This interval is a [C block(SNR) − C block T,lb (SNR)]/Cblock(SNR) fraction of the capacity where, C block(SNR) − C block T,lb (SNR) Cblock(SNR) =    O(SNRν− min{1,ν} 2 ) ν ≤ 3 2 o(SNR) ν > 3 2 Hence, region C is also a very small fraction of the capacity in the wideband regime. Therefore, we can conclude that it is region B: R ∈ [Rcritical, Cblock T,lb (SNR)], that dominates the range of rates…

Figures reproduced from arXiv:cs/0603018 by the authors.

References

Works cited (26)

[1]

R. G. Gallager, “A Simple Derivation of the Coding Theorem and Some Applications”, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 3-18, January 1965

View on Pith 1965
[2]

R. S. Kennedy, “Fading Dispersive Communication Channels”, New York: Wiley Inter- science, 1969

View on Pith 1969
[3]

R. G. Gallager, “Energy limited channels: Coding, multiaccess and s pread spectrum”, LIDS Technical Report, LIDS-P-1714, MIT, cambridge, MA, Nov. 1987

View on Pith 1987
[4]

E. Telatar, “Coding and multiaccess for the energy limited Rayleigh fading channel”, Master’s Thesis, MIT, 1988

View on Pith 1988
[5]

G.J. Foschini, “Layered space-time architecture for wireless co mmunication in a fading environment when using multi-element antennas”, Bell Labs Technical Journal , Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 41-59, 1996

View on Pith 1996
[6]

R. G. Gallager and M. M´ edard, “Bandwidth scaling for fading chan nels”, International Symposium on Information Theory , p. 471, Ulm, Germany, 1997

View on Pith 1997
[7]

V. Tarokh, “Space-Time Codes for High Data Rate Wireless Commu nication: Perfor- mance Criterion and Code Construction”, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , Vol. 44, pp. 744-765, March 1998

View on Pith 1998
[8]

T. L. Marzetta and B. M. Hochwald, “Capacity of a mobile multiple-a ntenna commu- nication link in ﬂat fading”, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , Vol. 45, pp. 139-157, January 1999

View on Pith 1999
[9]

I.E. Telatar, “Capacity of multi-antenna Gaussian channels”, European Transactions on Telecommunications, 10(6):585-95, Nov/Dec 1999. 31

View on Pith 1999
[10]

B. M. Hochwald and T. L. Marzetta, “Unitary Space-Time Modula tion for Multiple- Antenna Communications in Rayleigh Flat Fading”, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, Vol. 46, pp. 543-564, March 2000

View on Pith 2000
[11]

M. M´ edard, “The eﬀect upon channel capacity in wireless comm unications of perfect and imperfect knowledge of the channel”, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , Vol. 46, May 2000

View on Pith 2000
[12]

E. Telatar and D. N. C. Tse, “Capacity and mutual information o f wideband multipath fading channels”, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , Vol. 46, July 2000

View on Pith 2000
[13]

I. C. Abou-Faycal, M. D. Trott and S. Shamai, “The Capacity of Discrete-Time Memo- ryless Rayleigh-Fading Channels”, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , Vol. 47, pp. 1290-1301, May 2001

View on Pith 2001
[14]

L. Zheng and D. N. C. Tse, “Communication on the Grassman Man ifold: A geometric approach to the noncoherent multiple-antenna channel”, IEEE Transactions on Infor- mation Theory , Vol. 48, pp. 359-83, February 2002

View on Pith 2002
[15]

M. M´ edard and R.G. Gallager, “Bandwidth scaling for fading multip ath channels”, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , Vol. 48, April 2002

View on Pith 2002
[16]

V. G. Subramanian and B. Hajek, “Broad-band fading channels : Signal burstiness and Capacity”, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , Vol. 48, pp. 908-27, April 2002

View on Pith 2002
[17]

S. Verd´ u, “Spectral eﬃciency in the wideband regime”, IEEE Transactions on Infor- mation Theory , Vol. 48, pp. 1319-1343, June 2002

View on Pith 2002
[18]

L. Zheng and D. N. C. Tse, “The Diversity-Multiplexing Tradeoﬀ f or Non-coherent Multiple Antenna Channels”, Allerton Conference 2002 , 2002

View on Pith 2002
[19]

B. Hassibi and B. M. Hochwald, “How much training is needed in mult iple-antenna wireless links?”, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , Vol. 49, pp. 951-963, April 2003

View on Pith 2003
[20]

L. Zheng and D. N. C. Tse, “Diversity and Multiplexing: A Fundame ntal Tradeoﬀ in Multiple-Antenna Channels”, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , Vol. 49, pp. 1073-1096, May 2003

View on Pith 2003
[21]

A. Lozano, A. M. Tulino and S. Verd´ u, “Multiple-Antenna capac ity in the Low-Power Regime”, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , Vol. 49, No. 10, October 2003

View on Pith 2003
[22]

D. S. Lun, M. M´ edard and I. C. Abou-Faycal, “On the Perform ance of Peaky Capacity- Achieving Signaling on Multipath Fading Channels”, IEEE Transaction on Communi- cations, Vol. 52, pp. 931-938, June 2004

View on Pith 2004
[23]

V. V. Prelov and S. Verd´ u, “Second-Order Asymptotics of Mu tual Information”, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , Vol. 50, pp. 1567-1580, August 2004. 32

View on Pith 2004
[24]

C. Rao and B. Hassibi, “Analysis of Multiple- Antenna Wireless Links at Low SNR”, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , Vol. 50(9), pp. 2123-2130, September 2004

View on Pith 2004
[25]

X. Wu and R. Srikant, “MIMO Channels in the Low SNR Regime: Comm unication Rate, Error Exponent and Signal Peakiness”, Information Theory Workshop 2004 , San Antonio, Texas, 2004

View on Pith 2004
[26]

L. Zheng, D. N. C. Tse and M. M´ edard, “Channel Coherence in the low SNR Regime”, submitted to IEEE Transactions on Information Theory . Appendix 1 Proof of Lemma 1: Proof of (2): For any α ∈ (0, 1] and γ ∈ (0, α), let there exist an input distribution on X that satisﬁes the following: 1 l I(X; Y) ≥ rSNR − r(r + t) 2t SNR1+α + O(SNR1+α+γ). (44) Let YG be...

View on Pith

Discussion

Disagree with the review, or know something it missed? Leave a comment, highlight any passage above to comment on it, or challenge this review formally.

[1] [1]

R. G. Gallager, “A Simple Derivation of the Coding Theorem and Some Applications”, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 3-18, January 1965

View on Pith 1965

[2] [2]

R. S. Kennedy, “Fading Dispersive Communication Channels”, New York: Wiley Inter- science, 1969

View on Pith 1969

[3] [3]

R. G. Gallager, “Energy limited channels: Coding, multiaccess and s pread spectrum”, LIDS Technical Report, LIDS-P-1714, MIT, cambridge, MA, Nov. 1987

View on Pith 1987

[4] [4]

E. Telatar, “Coding and multiaccess for the energy limited Rayleigh fading channel”, Master’s Thesis, MIT, 1988

View on Pith 1988

[5] [5]

G.J. Foschini, “Layered space-time architecture for wireless co mmunication in a fading environment when using multi-element antennas”, Bell Labs Technical Journal , Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 41-59, 1996

View on Pith 1996

[6] [6]

R. G. Gallager and M. M´ edard, “Bandwidth scaling for fading chan nels”, International Symposium on Information Theory , p. 471, Ulm, Germany, 1997

View on Pith 1997

[7] [7]

V. Tarokh, “Space-Time Codes for High Data Rate Wireless Commu nication: Perfor- mance Criterion and Code Construction”, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , Vol. 44, pp. 744-765, March 1998

View on Pith 1998

[8] [8]

T. L. Marzetta and B. M. Hochwald, “Capacity of a mobile multiple-a ntenna commu- nication link in ﬂat fading”, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , Vol. 45, pp. 139-157, January 1999

View on Pith 1999

[9] [9]

I.E. Telatar, “Capacity of multi-antenna Gaussian channels”, European Transactions on Telecommunications, 10(6):585-95, Nov/Dec 1999. 31

View on Pith 1999

[10] [10]

B. M. Hochwald and T. L. Marzetta, “Unitary Space-Time Modula tion for Multiple- Antenna Communications in Rayleigh Flat Fading”, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, Vol. 46, pp. 543-564, March 2000

View on Pith 2000

[11] [11]

M. M´ edard, “The eﬀect upon channel capacity in wireless comm unications of perfect and imperfect knowledge of the channel”, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , Vol. 46, May 2000

View on Pith 2000

[12] [12]

E. Telatar and D. N. C. Tse, “Capacity and mutual information o f wideband multipath fading channels”, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , Vol. 46, July 2000

View on Pith 2000

[13] [13]

I. C. Abou-Faycal, M. D. Trott and S. Shamai, “The Capacity of Discrete-Time Memo- ryless Rayleigh-Fading Channels”, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , Vol. 47, pp. 1290-1301, May 2001

View on Pith 2001

[14] [14]

L. Zheng and D. N. C. Tse, “Communication on the Grassman Man ifold: A geometric approach to the noncoherent multiple-antenna channel”, IEEE Transactions on Infor- mation Theory , Vol. 48, pp. 359-83, February 2002

View on Pith 2002

[15] [15]

M. M´ edard and R.G. Gallager, “Bandwidth scaling for fading multip ath channels”, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , Vol. 48, April 2002

View on Pith 2002

[16] [16]

V. G. Subramanian and B. Hajek, “Broad-band fading channels : Signal burstiness and Capacity”, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , Vol. 48, pp. 908-27, April 2002

View on Pith 2002

[17] [17]

S. Verd´ u, “Spectral eﬃciency in the wideband regime”, IEEE Transactions on Infor- mation Theory , Vol. 48, pp. 1319-1343, June 2002

View on Pith 2002

[18] [18]

L. Zheng and D. N. C. Tse, “The Diversity-Multiplexing Tradeoﬀ f or Non-coherent Multiple Antenna Channels”, Allerton Conference 2002 , 2002

View on Pith 2002

[19] [19]

B. Hassibi and B. M. Hochwald, “How much training is needed in mult iple-antenna wireless links?”, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , Vol. 49, pp. 951-963, April 2003

View on Pith 2003

[20] [20]

L. Zheng and D. N. C. Tse, “Diversity and Multiplexing: A Fundame ntal Tradeoﬀ in Multiple-Antenna Channels”, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , Vol. 49, pp. 1073-1096, May 2003

View on Pith 2003

[21] [21]

A. Lozano, A. M. Tulino and S. Verd´ u, “Multiple-Antenna capac ity in the Low-Power Regime”, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , Vol. 49, No. 10, October 2003

View on Pith 2003

[22] [22]

D. S. Lun, M. M´ edard and I. C. Abou-Faycal, “On the Perform ance of Peaky Capacity- Achieving Signaling on Multipath Fading Channels”, IEEE Transaction on Communi- cations, Vol. 52, pp. 931-938, June 2004

View on Pith 2004

[23] [23]

V. V. Prelov and S. Verd´ u, “Second-Order Asymptotics of Mu tual Information”, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , Vol. 50, pp. 1567-1580, August 2004. 32

View on Pith 2004

[24] [24]

C. Rao and B. Hassibi, “Analysis of Multiple- Antenna Wireless Links at Low SNR”, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory , Vol. 50(9), pp. 2123-2130, September 2004

View on Pith 2004

[25] [25]

X. Wu and R. Srikant, “MIMO Channels in the Low SNR Regime: Comm unication Rate, Error Exponent and Signal Peakiness”, Information Theory Workshop 2004 , San Antonio, Texas, 2004

View on Pith 2004

[26] [26]

L. Zheng, D. N. C. Tse and M. M´ edard, “Channel Coherence in the low SNR Regime”, submitted to IEEE Transactions on Information Theory . Appendix 1 Proof of Lemma 1: Proof of (2): For any α ∈ (0, 1] and γ ∈ (0, α), let there exist an input distribution on X that satisﬁes the following: 1 l I(X; Y) ≥ rSNR − r(r + t) 2t SNR1+α + O(SNR1+α+γ). (44) Let YG be...

View on Pith