1: \bozzefalse
2: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3: \Paragrafo(IN){Introduction}
4: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
5:
6: \PARstart{C}{ontinuous} phase modulation (CPM) is a widely used form of digital modulation which is employed in many modern standards due to its very good power and spectral efficiency \bibl(Anderson86). CPM is currently used in 2nd generation GSM (global system for mobile communications) cell phones, but also in IEEE 802.11 FHSS, Bluetooth, and other proprietary wireless modems.
7:
8: The (single-$h$) CPM signal is defined by
9: $$
10: v(t) = e^{j\alpha(t)}
11: \e(IN2)
12: $$
13: where
14: $$
15: \alpha(t) = 2\pi\,h \sum_n a_n\,\varphi(t-nT)
16: \z(a)
17: $$
18: with: $h$ the {\em modulation index}; $\{a_n\}$ the data sequence with period $T$ and $M$--ary alphabet $\C(A)_M=\{\pm1,\pm3,\ldots,\pm(M-1)\}$; $\varphi(t)$ the {\em phase response}, a monotonic function satisfying the property $\varphi(t)=0$ for $t\le0$ and $\varphi(t)=\fract12$ for $t\ge LT$, with $L$ the system memory.
19:
20: Thanks to its constant-envelope waveform, CPM guarantees a constant transmitted power, thus allowing use of low--cost nonlinear amplifiers, with a save of 3--10~dB loss of nonlinear distortion \bibl(Anderson86). Moreover, due to the phase continuity, the CPM signals have good spectral properties compared with memoryless modulations. The attractive feautures of CPM must face some major drawbacks, the most important being the high implementation complexity required for an optimal receiver, and the even more challenging task of receiver optimization in nonlinear and/or fading channels \bibl(Vitetta06), such as satellite and mobile radio channels. A common approach to complexity reduction, proposed by Laurent in 1986 \bibl(Laurent86), is that of interpreting CPM as the cascade of an encoder followed by a bank of PAM (pulse amplitude modulation) interpolators, some of which carry very minor portions of the signal power and can thus be discarded. In this way, moderate--complexity efficient receiver can be built. Many different approaches of PAM decomposition have been proposed during years \bibl(Mengali95), \bibl(Huang03), \bibl(Cariolaro05), \bibl(Perrins06), making CPM still an attractive research issue.
21:
22: More recently, the literature has been focusing on a generalization of the ordinary single--$h$ CPM format \e(IN2), formerly introduced by Anderson and Taylor in 1978 \bibl(Anderson78). This generalization, known as multi--$h$ CPM, assumes that the modulation index is time--varying, to have
23: $$
24: \alpha(t) = 2\pi \sum_n a_n\,h_n\,\varphi(t-nT)
25: \e(IN4)
26: $$
27: where $\{h_n\}$ is usually a periodic sequence of period $N_h$. In comparison with single--$h$ CPM, the multi--$h$ CPM signal is known to be able to reduce the bandwidth \bibl(Mazur81) and increase the probability of detection at the receiver side \bibl(Anderson86), \bibl(Allen03). Also, low--complexity receivers through PAM decomposition of multi--$h$ CPM signals have already been proposed in \bibl(Perrins06), \bibl(Perrins05),
28:
29: In this paper, we deal with another interesting aspect of multi--$h$ CPM signals, that is power spectral density (PSD) evaluation, an issue which has been investigated both in the past (e.g. see \bibl(Wilson81) and references therein) and in recent times \bibl(Allen03), \bibl(Ilyin04). However, unlike the existing literature that has focused on numerical calculation, we aim at {\em closed form} PSD evaluation.
30:
31: This is possible by interpreting the CPM signal as a combination of PAM signals, using Laurent approach. The key point is then to model the encoder, preceeding the bank of PAM interpolators, as a finite-state sequential machine (SM) \bibl(Cariolaro06) whose output PSD can be derived in closed--form by exploiting the results of \bibl(CarTron74). As will be clearer later on, the direct application of \bibl(CarTron74) is not possible in the multi--$h$ CPM context, since that theory is valid for a {\em stationary} and {\em irreducible} SM, whereas multi--$h$ CPM has a {\em periodically time invariant} (PTI) structure. Furthermore, the peculiar input alphabet $\C(A)_M$ leads to a {\em reducible} SM. In any case, a judicious modification of the SM case finally permits relying on \bibl(CarTron74). Incidentally, the reducibility problem is also found with the ordinary (single-$h$) CPM case, of which we give new further insights. We also underline that the proposed method is closely related to the results of \bibl(Yang98), with the non trivial differences of being able to propose a {\em truly closed form} and more compact results, and of being able to deal with a reducible SM.
32:
33: The paper is organized as follows. Section~II deals with the representation of a multi--$h$ CPM modulator through a finite--state SM, while the investigation of PTI and reducible structures is given in Section~III. Then, Section~IV illustrates the formulation of a {\em stationary} and {\em irreducible} SM generating the multi--$h$ CPM signal after a proper bank of PAM interpolators. Section~V recalls the findings of \bibl(CarTron74), and uses them to formulate the closed--form PSD evaluation. Some examples of spectra are reported in Section~VI. Finally, Section~VII concludes the paper.
34:
35:
36: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
37: \Paragrafo(RC){Representation of CPM Modulator}
38: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
39:
40: In this section we develop a convenient representation of a multi--$h$ CPM modulator, consisting of a SM followed by a bank of interpolators. The deduction of the CPM representation is based on the basic decomposition (BD) of the CPM signal into PAM waveforms \bibl(Cariolaro05). The periodically varying modulation index leads to a PTI SM and to PTI interpolators.
41:
42:
43: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
44: \subsection{The basic decomposition for multi--$h$ CPM}
45:
46: The phase of the multi--$h$ CPM signal \e(IN4) in the interval $\C(I)_n=[nT,nT+T)$ can be written in the form
47: $$
48: \alpha(t) = 2\pi \left[
49: \sum_{m=-\infty}^{n-L} a_m h_m \,\frac{1}{2}
50: + \sum_{m=n-L+1}^n a_m h_m \,\varphi(t-mT)
51: \right]
52: %\vq t \in \C(I)_n
53: \,.
54: \e(TT2)
55: $$
56: Then
57: $$
58: v(t) = \sigma_{n-L} \prod_{i=0}^{L-1} e^{ja_{n-i} h_{n-i} \varphi(t-(n-i)T)}
59: \vq t \in \C(I)_n
60: \e(TT2bis)
61: $$
62: where
63: $$
64: \sigma_{n-L}=\prod_{m=-\infty}^{n-L} J_m^{a_m}
65: \q \hb{with} \q J_m=e^{j\pi h_m}
66: \e(K4)
67: $$
68: plays the role of a {\em state}, which is renewed according to the relation
69: $$
70: \sigma_{m+1}=\sigma_m J_{m+1}^{a_{m+1}}\;.
71: \e(K6)
72: $$
73:
74: Comparison with the single--$h$ case \bibl(Cariolaro06) shows that the BD takes the form
75: $$
76: v(t)=\sum_n \BB(q)_n(t-nT)\,\BB(b)_n
77: \e(K8)
78: $$
79: where
80: $$
81: \BB(b)_n
82: = \sigma_{n-L} \,\Big[\delta_{\BB(\scriptstyle a)_n,\BB(\scriptstyle\alpha)}\Big]
83: _{\BB(\scriptstyle\alpha)\in\C(A)_M^L}
84: \z(a)
85: $$
86: is a {\em word sequence} (column vectors of length $N=M^L$), and
87: $$
88: \BB(q)_n(t)
89: = \eta_T(t) \left[ \prod_{i=0}^{L-1}
90: \exp \left( j2\pi h_{n-i} \alpha_i \varphi(t+iT) \right) \right]
91: _{\BB(\scriptstyle\alpha)\in\C(A)_M^L}
92: \z(b)
93: $$
94: constitutes an interpolating filter bank (row vectors of length $N$). Here, $\eta_T(t)$ is an indicator function active over the interval $[0,T)$, $\delta$ is a vector generalization of the Kronecker delta function, $\BB(a)_n=(a_{n-L+1},\ldots,a_n)$ collects the input data over a window of length $L$, $\BB(\alpha)=(\alpha_0,\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_{L-1}) \in \C(A)_M^L$, and $N$ is the cardinality of $\C(A)_M^L$.
95:
96: The difference with respect to the single--$h$ CPM is in the renewal law \e(K4), which is periodically time--dependent (PTI), and in the pulses $\BB(q)_n(t)$, which are PTI with respect to the time $n$. This is shown in \Figg(MH30)0, where the non--linear device produces the symbols $\BB(b)_n$ from the input data and the bank of interpolators produces the PAM waveforms.\Figg(MH30)2
97:
98: We now discuss the nature of the ``state'' $\sigma_m$, whose renewal law is given by \e(K6). We suppose that {\co all the modulation indexes are rational} and we write them in the form $h_i=r_i/p$, where $p$ is the least common denominator of the fractions. As an example \bibl(Perrins06), if $h_0=\fract{1}{4}=\fract{4}{16}$, $h_1=\fract{5}{16}$, $h_2=\fract{8}{16}$, $h_3=\fract{5}{8}=\fract{10}{16}$, the integer $p$ is $16$. Then we can see that
99: $$
100: \sigma_m \in \left\{ 1,W_{2p},W_{2p}^2,\ldots,W_{2p}^{2p-1}\right\}
101: \eqq \C(W)_{2p}
102: \;,\; W_{2p}=e^{j2\pi/(2p)}\;.
103: \e(K10)
104: $$
105: It will be convenient to replace $\sigma_m$ by an equivalent state $z_m$ such that
106: $$
107: \sigma_m=W_{2p}^{z_m}
108: \e(K11)
109: $$
110: which takes the values in the integer set
111: $$
112: z_m \in \{ 0,1,\ldots,2p-1 \} \eqq \C(N)_{2p}\;.
113: \e(K12)
114: $$
115: The renewal law for $z_m$ is obtained by rewriting \e(K4) using \e(K11), namely
116: $$
117: W_{2p}^{s_{m+1}}
118: = W_{2p}^{z_m} \, e^{j\pi r_{m+1} a_{m+1}/p} = W_{2p}^{z_m+r_{m+1} a_{m+1}}\;.
119: $$
120: Hence
121: $$
122: z_{m+1} = (z_m+r_{m+1} a_{m+1})_{2p}
123: \e(K13)
124: $$
125: where $(\;)_{2p}$ denotes modulo $2p$.
126:
127: In terms of $z_m$ the word sequence becomes
128: $$
129: \eqalign{
130: \BB(b)_n
131: &= W_{2p}^{z_{n-L}} \Big[ \delta_{\BB(\scriptstyle a)_n,\BB(\scriptstyle\alpha)} \Big]
132: _{\BB(\scriptstyle\alpha)\in\C(A)_M^L}\cr
133: &= W_{2p}^{z_{n-L}} \left[ \delta_{a_{n-L+1},\alpha_0} \cdots
134: \delta_{a_n,\alpha_{L-1}} \right]_{\BB(\scriptstyle\alpha)\in\C(A)_M^L}\;.
135: }
136: \e(K15pre)
137: $$
138: Now, the vector $\BB(b)_n$ of length $N=M^L$ can be conveniently written by the Kronecker product%
139: \footnote{%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
140: Given two matrices $\B(A)=||a_{mn}||$ and $\B(B)=||b_{ij}||$
141: of arbitrary dimensions $M_A\times N_A$ and $M_B\times N_B$,
142: the {\it Kronecker product} $\B(A)\times \B(B)$ is defined by
143: $$
144: \B(A)\times \B(B) = \qmatrix{%
145: a_{1 1}\, \B(B) &\ldots & a_{\scriptscriptstyle 1 N_A}\, \B(B) \cr\VS{-3}
146: \vdots & &\vdots \cr\VS{-9}
147: a_{\scriptscriptstyle M_A 1}\, \B(B) &\ldots &a_{\scriptscriptstyle M_A N_A}\, \B(B)}
148: $$
149: and is a matrix of dimensions $(M_A M_B)\times(N_A N_B)$.
150: The $L$th \emph{Kronecker power} of a matrix $\B(A)$ is defined as
151: $\B(A)^{\times L} = \B(A) \times \B(A) \times \cdots \times \B(A) \q
152: \hbox{($L$ factors)}$. The following property
153: relates the Kronecker product to the ordinary matrix product
154: (\emph{mixed--product law}) $(\B(A)\times\B(B)) \: (\B(C)\times \B(D)) = (\B(A)\,\B(C)) \times (\B(B)\,\B(D))$
155: and more generally $(\B(A)_1 \times \cdots \times \B(A)_n)\:
156: (\B(B)_1 \times \cdots \times \B(B)_n) = (\B(A)_1\,\B(B)_1)
157: \times \cdots \times (\B(A)_n\,\B(B)_n)
158: \pu$
159: If $\B(A)$ and $\B(B)$ are invertible
160: square matrices, $(\B(A)\times\B(B))^{-1} = \B(A)^{-1} \times \B(B)^{-1} \pu
161: $
162: } $\otimes$. Specifically,
163:
164: \Proposition(A1) Let $\BB(w)_{a_n}=[\delta_{a_n,\alpha}]_{\alpha\in\C(A)_M}$ be the indicator vector of $a_n$ (a column vector of size $M$). Then
165: $$
166: \BB(b)_n
167: = W_{2p}^{z_{n-L}} \BB(w)_{a_{n-L+1}} \otimes \cdots
168: \otimes \BB(w)_{a_{n-1}} \otimes \BB(w)_{a_n} \;.~\q\Box
169: \e(K15)
170: $$
171:
172: For instance, for $L=1$ and $M=4$ we have
173: $$
174: \left[ \delta_{a_n,\alpha}\right]_{\alpha \in \C(A)_4}
175: = W_{2p}^{z_{n-1}} \BB(w)_{a_{n}}
176: $$
177: where
178: $$
179: \eqalign{ &
180: \BB(w)_{-3}=\qmatrix{1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \cr}^T \vq
181: \BB(w)_{-1}=\qmatrix{0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \cr}^T \cr &
182: \BB(w)_{+1}=\qmatrix{0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \cr}^T \vq
183: \BB(w)_{+3}=\qmatrix{0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \cr}^T\;.
184: }
185: $$
186:
187:
188: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
189: \subsection{Formulation of the sequential machine}
190:
191: We now formalize the non--linear device of \fig(MH30) as a PTI SM (see \bibl(Cariolaro06) for the single--$h$ case), that is as a quintuple
192: $$
193: \C(M)_{\hbt{CPM}}=(\C(A),\C(B),\C(S),\BB(g),\BB(h))
194: \e(K13bis)
195: $$
196: where $\C(A)$ is the input alphabet, $\C(B)$ is the output alphabet, $\C(S)$ is the state alphabet, $\BB(g)$ is the state--update function and $\BB(h)$ is the output function, with
197: $$
198: \left\{\eqalign{
199: &\BB(s)_{n+1} = \BB(g)\Big(\BB(s)_{n},\BB(a)_{n},n\Big)\;,\qquad \BB(a)_{n}\in\C(A)\,,\;\BB(s)_{n},\BB(s)_{n+1}\in\C(S)\cr
200: &\BB(b)_{n} = \BB(h)\Big(\BB(s)_{n},\BB(a)_{n},n\Big)\;,\qquad\BB(b)_{n}\in\C(B)\,.\cr
201: }\right.
202: \e(K13tris)
203: $$
204: Note that, in general, the state update function and the output function in \e(K13tris) depend on $n$. When the dependence on $n$ can be dropped we will talk of a stationary update/output function, and when the dependence is periodic on $n$ we will talk of a PTI update/output function.
205:
206:
207: We begin by expliciting the SM in a specific case, and let $L=3$. The input is simply identified as $\BB(a)_{n}=a_n$, with alphabet $\C(A)=\C(A)_M$. We then choose a valid state $\BB(s)_{n}$, and observe that $\sigma_m$ (or $z_m$) is not a sufficient information for determining \e(K15). Hence, by inspection of \e(K15), we let the state be
208: $$
209: \BB(s)_n
210: = \left( s_n^{(0)},s_n^{(1)},s_n^{(2)}\right)
211: = \left( z_{n-3},a_{n-2},a_{n-1}\right)
212: \e(K14)
213: $$
214: as in the single--$h$ case. Then, from \e(K13), the state update function is expressed as
215: $$
216: \cases{
217: s_{n+1}^{(0)}
218: = z_{n-2}
219: = \left( z_{n-3} +r_{n-2} a_{n-2} \right)_{2p}
220: = \left( s_n^{(0)}+r_{n-2} s_n^{(1)}\right)_{2p} & \cr
221: s_{n+1}^{(1)}
222: = a_{n-1}
223: = s_n^{(2)} & \cr
224: s_{n+1}^{(2)}
225: = a_n\;. & \cr
226: }
227: \e(K16)
228: $$
229: Therefore the state--transition has the form $\BB(s)_{n+1}=\BB(g)(\BB(s)_n,a_n,n)$ whose dependence on $n$ is due to \e(K16), where $r_{n-2}$ depends on $n$. Moreover, the dependence is periodic in $n$ because of the periodicity of $r_n$. From \e(K14) we see that the state set is $\C(S)=\C(N)_{2p} \times \C(A)_M^{2}$. Finally, the output function is defined by \e(K15), which is explicitly
230: $$
231: \eqalign{
232: \BB(b)_n
233: & = W_{2p}^{z_{n-3}} \BB(w)_{a_{n-2}} \otimes \BB(w)_{a_{n-1}}
234: \otimes \BB(w)_{a_n} \cr
235: & = W_{2p}^{s_n^{(0)}} \BB(w)_{s_n^{(1)}} \otimes \BB(w)_{s_n^{(2)}}
236: \otimes \BB(w)_{a_n} \;.
237: }
238: \e(K17)
239: $$
240: This relation has the form $\BB(b)_n=\BB(h) \left( \BB(s)_n,a_n \right)$, where $\BB(h)(\cdot)$ is not time dependent.
241:
242: In the general case we have
243: \Proposition(P7) In a multi--$h$ CPM with alphabet size $M$, memory $L$ and rational modulation indexes $h_n=r_n/p$, $n=0,1,\ldots,N_h$, the states of the SM $\C(M)_{\hbt{CPM}}$ are defined by
244: $$
245: \BB(s)_n
246: = \left( s_n^{(0)},s_n^{(1)},\ldots,s_n^{(L-1)}\right)
247: = \left( z_{n-L},a_{n-L+1},\ldots,a_{n-1}\right)
248: \e(TT6)
249: $$
250: and the state set is
251: $$
252: \C(S)=\C(N)_{2p} \times \C(A)_M^{L-1}\;.
253: \e(TT8)
254: $$
255: The state--transition function $\BB(s)_{n+1}=\BB(g)(\BB(s)_n,a_n,n)$, periodic in $n$ with period $N_h$, is defined by
256: $$
257: \cases{
258: s_{n+1}^{(0)}=\left( s_n^{(0)}+r_{n-L+1} s_n^{(1)}\right)_{2p} & \cr
259: s_{n+1}^{(1)}=s_n^{(2)} & \cr
260: \q\vdots & \cr
261: s_{n+1}^{(L-2)}=s_n^{(L-1)} & \cr
262: s_{n+1}^{(L-1)}=a_n\;. & \cr
263: }
264: \e(K20)
265: $$
266: The output function $\BB(b)_n=\BB(h) \left( \BB(s)_n,a_n\right)$ is given by
267: $$
268: \BB(b)_n = W_{2p}^{s_n^{(0)}} \BB(w)_{s_n^{(1)}} \otimes \cdots \otimes \BB(w)_{s_n^{(L-1)}} \otimes \BB(w)_{a_n}\;.~\q\Box
269: \e(TT10)
270: $$
271:
272: The complexity of the SM $\C(M)_{\hbt{CPM}}$ is essentially determined by the cardinality of the state set, given by
273: $$
274: I=|\C(S)|=2p \, M^{L-1}\;.
275: \e(TT12)
276: $$
277: The input alphabet is $\C(A)=\C(A)_M$. The length of the output words $\BB(b)_n$ is
278: $$
279: |\C(A)_M^L|=M^L \eqq N
280: \e(TT14)
281: $$
282: and their structure is
283: $$
284: \eqalign{
285: & W_{2p}^{s_n^{(0)}} \qmatrix{1 & 0 & 0 & \cdots & 0 & 0 \cr}\cr
286: & W_{2p}^{s_n^{(0)}} \qmatrix{0 & 1 & 0 & \cdots & 0 & 0 \cr}\cr
287: & \q \vdots \cr
288: & W_{2p}^{s_n^{(0)}} \qmatrix{0 & 0 & 0 & \cdots & 0 & 1 \cr}\cr}
289: $$
290: so that the output alphabet $\C(B)$ is a subset of $\C(W)_{2p}^{N}$.
291:
292:
293: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
294: \subsection{Statistical description for spectral analysis}
295:
296: The target is the evaluation of the {\em average PSD} $\overline{R}_v(f)$ of the multi--$h$ CPM signal $v(t)$. In this analysis the following random processes are involved: the input data $a_n=a(nT)$, the state sequence $s_n=s(nT)$, the word sequence $\BB(b)_n=\BB(b)(nT)$, and the CPM signal $v(t)$, $t \in \M(R)$.
297:
298: The assumptions on which we base our analysis are four, namely
299: \IT 1) The input alphabet is an $M$-ary alphabet $\C(A)_M$, with $M$ even, containing odd symbols.
300: \IT 2) The input data $\{a_n\}$ are {\em stationary} and {\em statistically independent}, with given probabilities $q_{\alpha} = \P[a_n=\alpha]$, $\alpha \in \C(A)_M$.
301: \IT 3) The modulation indexes $h_n$ are rational, namely $h_n=r_n/p$, $n=0,1,\ldots,N_h-1$, $p$ being the common denominator of the fractions and $r_n$ being integers.
302: \IT 4) The modulation index sequence $\{h_n\}$ is PTI of period $N_h$.
303: \ET
304:
305: As a consequence of 4), the sequential machine $\C(M)_{\hbt{CPM}}$ of \proposition(P7) and the filter bank of \ee(K8)a are PTI. This makes all the processes $\BB(s)_n$, $\BB(b)_n$, and $v(t)$ (\Figg(MH20)0).\Figg(MH20)2
306:
307: As we shall see, the period of cyclostationary $T_c$ depends not only on the period of the modulation indexes $N_h$, but also on their {\co parity}. In fact, the cyclostationarity period is $T_c=N_c T$ with
308: $$
309: N_c=\cases{ N_h & if $\sum_{n=0}^{N_h-1} r_n$ is even \cr
310: 2N_h & if $\sum_{n=0}^{N_h-1} r_n$ is odd. \cr} \e(HZ3)
311: $$
312: Specifically, for a single-$h$ CPM with even $r_0$ we have $N_c=1$, but for a odd $r_0$ it is $N_c=2$.
313:
314:
315: The fundamental result for the statistical description of the above random processes is that, as a consequence of 4), the state sequence $\BB(s)_n$ is a {\co non--homogeneus} (i.e., non--stationary) Markov chain. Then, its full statistical specification can be obtained as a straightforward generalization of the results available for homogeneous Markov chains, providing the state absolute probabilities
316: $$
317: p_n(\BB(i))=\P[\BB(s)_n=\BB(i)] \vq \BB(i) \in \C(S)
318: \ee(HZ8)a
319: $$
320: and the state transition probabilities
321: $$
322: \pi_n(\BB(i),\BB(j))=\P[\BB(s)_{n+1}=\BB(i) | \BB(s)_n=\BB(j)]
323: \vq \BB(i),\BB(j) \in \C(S)\;.
324: \z(b)
325: $$
326: Both $p_n(\BB(i))$ and $\pi_n(\BB(i),\BB(j))$ are periodic of period $N_c$ in $n$. They are customarily collected in matrix form under the name of, respectively, the state absolute probability vector (APV) $\BB(p)_n$ and the transition probability matrix (TPM) $\BB(\pi)_n$ defined as
327: $$
328: \BB(\pi)_n = \Big[\pi_n(\BB(i),\BB(j))\Big]
329: _{\BB(\scriptstyle i),\BB(\scriptstyle j)\in\C(S)}\vq
330: \BB(p)_n = \Big[p_n(\BB(i))\Big]
331: _{\BB(\scriptstyle i)\in\C(S)}\;.
332: \e(HZ8bis)
333: $$
334:
335:
336: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
337: \subsection{Evaluation of the transition probability matrix}
338:
339: For the evaluation of the TPM we can use the same technique of \bibl(CarTron74) with the modification concerning the time--dependence.
340:
341: \Proposition(M4) Let $\BB(e)_{\alpha,n} = [ e
342: _{\alpha,n}(\BB(i),\BB(j))] _{\BB(\scriptstyle i),\BB(\scriptstyle j)\in\C(S)}$ be $I \times I$ binary matrices defined by the state--transition function $\BB(s)_{n+1}=\BB(g)_n(\BB(s)_n,\alpha)$ according to
343: $$
344: e_{\alpha,n}(\BB(i),\BB(j))=\cases{
345: 1 & if $\BB(i)=\BB(g)_n(\BB(j),\alpha)$ \cr
346: 0 & if $\BB(i)\neq \BB(g)_n(\BB(i),\alpha)$ \cr}
347: =\delta_{\BB(\scriptstyle i)\,,\,\BB(\scriptstyle g)_n(\BB(\scriptstyle j), \alpha)}\;.
348: \e(TT20)
349: $$
350: We will call $\BB(e)_{\alpha,n}$ conditional transition matrices, since they express state transitions under the condition $a_n=\alpha$. Then
351: $$
352: \BB(\pi)_n
353: = \sum_{\alpha \in \C(A)_M} q_{\alpha} \, \BB(e)_{\alpha,n}\,.~\q\Box
354: \e(TT22)
355: $$
356:
357: Now, by use of \e(TT20) and the state--update function \e(K20), the conditional transition matrices can be explicited as
358: $$
359: \eqalign{
360: \BB(e)_{\alpha,n} & = \Big[
361: \delta_{\BB(\scriptstyle i)\,,
362: \,\BB(\scriptstyle g)_n(\BB(\scriptstyle j), \alpha)}
363: \Big] _{\BB(\scriptstyle i),\BB(\scriptstyle j)\in\C(S)} \cr
364: & = \Big[
365: \delta_{i_0,(j_0+r_{n-L+1}j_1)_{2p}}\,
366: \delta_{i_1,j_2}\,\ldots\,\delta_{i_{L-2},j_{L-1}}
367: \,\delta_{i_{L-1},\alpha}
368: \Big] _{i_0,j_0\in \C(N)_{2p},\, i_1,j_1,\ldots,i_{L-1},j_{L-1}\in\C(A)_M}
369: }
370: \e(TT24)
371: $$
372: where $\BB(i)=[i_0 \,\cdots\, i_{L-1} ]^T$ and similarly for $\BB(j)$. The product of functions in \e(TT24) permits formulating the matrix $\BB(e)_{\alpha,n}$ in compact form through a Kronecker product by following a procedure similar to that leading to \e(K15).
373:
374: By preliminarily defining the single step ciclical shift matrix
375: $$
376: \BB(D)_{2p} \eqq \qmatrix{ & & & 1\cr 1 & & & \cr & \ddots & & \cr & & 1 & }
377: \qq \hbox{matrix $2p\times2p$}\;,
378: \e(TT26a)
379: $$
380: which is a square matrix obtained by cyclically shifting the main diagonal to the left by $1$ position, we then have (see Appendix~A for a proof)
381:
382: \Proposition(M4bis) The $I\times I$ conditional transition matrices $\BB(e)_{\alpha,n}$ for $L\ge2$ are given by
383: $$
384: \BB(e)_{\alpha,n} = \sum_{\beta\in\C(A)_M}
385: \BB(D)_{2p}^{r_{n-L+1}\beta}\,
386: \otimes\,\BB(w)_{\beta}^T\,
387: \otimes\,\BB(I)_{M^{L-2}}\,
388: \otimes\,\BB(w)_{\alpha}
389: \e(TT30)
390: $$
391: As a consequence, and by exploiting \e(TT22), the TPMs $\BB(\pi)_n$ give
392: $$
393: \BB(\pi)_n = \sum_{\beta\in\C(A)_M}
394: \BB(D)_{2p}^{r_{n-L+1}\beta}\,
395: \otimes\,\BB(w)_{\beta}^T\,
396: \otimes\,\BB(I)_{M^{L-2}}\,
397: \otimes\,\BB(q)\;.
398: \e(TT32)
399: $$
400: The case $L=1$ must be treated separately. We have
401: $$
402: \BB(e)_{\alpha,n} =\BB(D)_{2p}^{r_{n-L+1}\alpha}\;,\qq
403: \BB(\pi)_n = \sum_{\beta\in\C(A)_M} q_\beta\,\BB(D)_{2p}^{r_{n-L+1}\beta} \q~\Box
404: \e(TT32bis)
405: $$
406:
407:
408: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
409: \subsection{Evaluation of the absolute probability vector}
410:
411: With respect to the APV $\BB(p)_n$, the following update relation holds from the definition of $\BB(p)_n$ and $\BB(\pi)_n$,
412: $$
413: \BB(p)_{n+1} = \BB(\pi)_n\,\BB(p)_n\;.
414: \e(TT34)
415: $$
416: The interest is to identify that particular APV which is invariant to the update \e(TT34), that is
417: $$
418: \BB(p)_{n} = \BB(\pi)_n\,\BB(p)_n\;,
419: $$
420: providing information on the limiting probabilities $\BB(p)_\infty$. Note that the APV we are looking for is an eigenvector of $\BB(\pi)_n$ with unit eigenvalue. As proved in Appendix~B, such a vector of interest is
421: $$
422: \BB(p)_n = \frac1{2p}\,\BB(1)_{2p}\,\otimes\,
423: \underbrace{\BB(q)\,\otimes\, \cdots\,\otimes\,\BB(q)}_{L-1}\;.
424: \e(TT40)
425: $$
426:
427:
428: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
429: \Paragrafo(CL){Classification of the Markov Chain}
430: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
431:
432: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
433: \subsection{Periodicity and reducibility properties}
434:
435: We have already seen that the TPMs $\BB(\pi)_n$ are periodic with period $N_h$. This makes the Markov chain being itself PTI. In addition, the Markov chain may further be {\em reducible}, that is if it is not possible to get to any state from any state or, equivalently, if some of the states cannot communicate between them. In the specific case of CPM, reducibility is assured by the rationale, explained in the following, and based upon the renewal law \e(K13).
436:
437: Recalling that $a_{m+1}$ is an odd number, we have the following prospect
438: \begin{small}
439: $$
440: \eqalign{
441: \hb{$r_{m+1}$ even} \q & \cases{\hb{$z_m$ even} & \hb{$\arr$ \q $z_{m+1}$ even} \cr
442: \hb{$z_m$ odd} & \hb{$\arr$ \q $z_{m+1}$ odd} \cr}
443: \cr
444: \hb{$r_{m+1}$ odd} \q & \cases{\hb{$z_m$ even} & \hb{$\arr$ \q $z_{m+1}$ odd} \cr
445: \hb{$z_m$ odd} & \hb{$\arr$ \q $z_{m+1}$ even} \cr} \cr} $$
446: \end{small}
447: Now, for convenience in the state set $\C(S)=\C(N)_{2p} \times \C(A)_M^{L-1}$ we partition $\C(N)_{2p}$ in its even and odd parts
448: $$
449: \C(N)_{2p}(+)=\{0,2,\ldots,2p-1\} \vq
450: \C(N)_{2p}(-)=\{1,3,\ldots,2p-1\} \;,
451: \e(K22)
452: $$
453: As a consequence, we arrange the matrix and vector indexes by displaying the even integers $\C(N)_{2p}(+)$ first, followed by the odd integers $\C(N)_{2p}(-)$, and find that the newly arranged matrices $\tilde{\BB(e)}_{\alpha,n}$ and $\tilde{\BB(\pi)}_n$ take a {\co block diagonal} form or a {\co block antidiagonal form}.
454:
455: As an example, with $L=1$, $p=4$, $M=2$ and $r_{n-L+1}=3$, we find that $\tilde{\BB(\pi)}_n$ has the block antidiagonal form
456: \begin{small}
457: $$
458: \begin{array}{c|cccc|cccc}
459: & 0 & 2 & 4 & \multicolumn{1}{c}{6} & 1 & 3 & 5 & 7 \cr
460: \hline
461: 0 & & & & & 0 & q_{-1}& q_1 & 0 \cr
462: 2 & & & & & 0 & 0 & q_{-1}& q_1 \cr
463: 4 & & & & & q_1 & 0 & 0 & q_{-1}\cr
464: 6 & & & & & q_{-1}& q_1 & 0 & 0 \cr
465: \cline{2-9}
466: 1 & 0 & 0 & q_{-1}& q_1 & & & & \cr
467: 3 & q_1 & 0 & 0 & q_{-1}& & & & \cr
468: 5 & q_{-1}& q_1 & 0 & 0 & & & & \cr
469: 7 & 0 & q_{-1}& q_1 & 0 & & & & \cr
470: \hline
471: \end{array}
472: $$
473: \end{small}
474: while for $r_{n-L+1}=2$ we obtain the block diagonal form
475: \begin{small}
476: $$
477: \begin{array}{c|cccc|cccc}
478: & 0 & 2 & 4 & \multicolumn{1}{c}{6} & 1 & 3 & 5 & 7 \cr
479: \hline
480: 0 & 0 & q_{-1}& 0 & q_1 & & & & \cr
481: 2 & q_1 & 0 & q_{-1}& 0 & & & & \cr
482: 4 & 0 & q_1 & 0 & q_{-1}& & & & \cr
483: 6 & q_{-1}& 0 & q_1 & 0 & & & & \cr
484: \cline{2-9}
485: \hline
486: 1 & & & & & 0 & q_{-1}& 0 & q_1 \cr
487: 3 & & & & & q_1 & 0 & q_{-1}& 0 \cr
488: 4 & & & & & 0 & q_1 & 0 & q_{-1}\cr
489: 7 & & & & & q_{-1}& 0 & q_1 & 0 \cr
490: \end{array}
491: $$
492: \end{small}
493: Note that submatrices are equal or closely related one each other by a simple circular shifts of the row (or column) order.
494:
495: The result can be generalized by inspection of \e(K20) and \ee(HZ8)b. Specifically, for $\tilde{\BB(\pi)}_n$ we obtain the structure
496: $$
497: \tilde{\BB(\pi)}_n = \cases{
498: \qmatrix{
499: \BB(F)_n & \B(0) \cr
500: \B(0) & \BB(F)_n \cr} & $r_{n-L+1}$ even \cr\VS3
501: \qmatrix{
502: \B(0) & \BB(D)_{I_0}^{I_0/p}\,\BB(G)_n \cr
503: \BB(G)_n & \B(0) \cr} & $r_{n-L+1}$ odd. \cr}
504: \e(K27)
505: $$
506: where $\BB(F)_n$ and $\BB(G)_n$ are $I_0\times I_0$ matrices with
507: $$
508: I_0 = \frac12\,I = p\,M^{L-1}
509: \e(K27b)
510: $$
511: Note that all submatrices are themselves TPMs.
512:
513: Moreover, submatices can be easily formulated as Kronecker products by recalling \e(TT32). For $r_{n-L+1}$ even we have
514: $$
515: \BB(F)_n = \sum_{\beta\in\C(A)_M}
516: \BB(D)_{2p}^{r_{n-L+1}\beta}(+|+)\,
517: \otimes\,\BB(w)_{\beta}^T\,
518: \otimes\,\BB(I)_{M^{L-2}}\,
519: \otimes\,\BB(q)
520: $$
521: with $\BB(D)_{2p}^{r_{n-L+1}\beta}(+|+)$ the square matrix collecting the samples of $\BB(D)_{2p}^{r_{n-L+1}\beta}$ at even rows and even columns, while for $r_{n-L+1}$ odd it is
522: $$
523: \BB(G)_n = \sum_{\beta\in\C(A)_M}
524: \BB(D)_{2p}^{r_{n-L+1}\beta}(-|+)\,
525: \otimes\,\BB(w)_{\beta}^T\,
526: \otimes\,\BB(I)_{M^{L-2}}\,
527: \otimes\,\BB(q)
528: $$
529: with $\BB(D)_{2p}^{r_{n-L+1}\beta}(-|+)$ the square matrix collecting the samples of $\BB(D)_{2p}^{r_{n-L+1}\beta}$ at odd rows and even columns. Note also that the correction term in \e(K27) can be written as
530: $$
531: \BB(D)_{I_0}^{I_0/p} = \BB(D)_p\,\otimes\,\BB(I)_{M^{L-1}}\;,
532: \e(K27c)
533: $$
534: which restores the true modulo $2p$ operation when transiting from odd to even states. Incidentally, the following equivalences hold
535: $$
536: \BB(D)_{I_0}^{I_0/p}\,\BB(F)_n = \BB(F)_n\,\BB(D)_{I_0}^{I_0/p}\vq
537: \BB(D)_{I_0}^{I_0/p}\,\BB(G)_n = \BB(G)_n\,\BB(D)_{I_0}^{I_0/p}\;.
538: \e(K27d)
539: $$
540:
541: By now decomposing the state set $\C(S)=\C(N)_{2p} \times \C(A)_M^{L-1}$ into the subsets
542: $$
543: \C(S)(\pm)=\C(N)_{2p}(\pm) \times \C(A)_M^{L-1}\;.
544: $$
545: we can further illustrate the meaning of matrices in \e(K27) by the following graph:
546: \begin{small}
547: $$
548: \eqalign{
549: \hb{$r_{n-L+1}$ even} \q &
550: \cases{\hb{$\B(s)_n\in\C(S)(+)$} & $\stackrel{\BB(F)_n}{\Arr}$
551: \q$\B(s)_n\in\C(S)(+)$ \cr
552: \hb{$\B(s)_n\in\C(S)(-)$} & $\stackrel{\BB(F)_n}{\Arr}$
553: \q$\B(s)_n\in\C(S)(-)$ \cr}
554: \cr
555: \hb{$r_{n-L+1}$ odd} \q &
556: \cases{\hb{$\B(s)_n\in\C(S)(+)$} & $\stackrel{\BB(G)_n}{\Arr}$
557: \q$\B(s)_n\in\C(S)(-)$ \cr
558: \hb{$\B(s)_n\in\C(S)(-)$} & $\stackrel{\BB(D)_{I_0}^{I_0/p}\,\BB(G)_n}{\Arr}$
559: \q$\B(s)_n\in\C(S)(+)$ \cr}
560: }
561: \e(K44)
562: $$
563: \end{small}
564: An equivalent illustration is given in \Figg(MH202)0.\Figg(MH202)2
565:
566: We see that, with $r_{n-L+1}$ even, the state sets $\C(S)(\pm)$ do not communicate: starting with $\BB(s)_n \in \C(S)(+)$ the next state $\BB(s)_{n+1}$ is again in $\C(S)(+)$, and this transition is governed by the TPM $\BB(F)_n$. Analogously, starting with $\B(s)_n \in \C(S)(-)$ the next state is $\BB(s)_{n+1} \in \C(S)(-)$ with TPM $\BB(F)_n$. No transition is possible from $\C(S)(+)$ into $\C(S)(-)$ and from $\C(S)(-)$ into $\C(S)(+)$. For $r_{n-L+1}$ odd, the state sets $\C(S)(\pm)$ do communicate deterministically: starting with $\BB(s)_n \in \C(S)(+)$ the next state is $\BB(s)_{n+1} \in \C(S)(-)$ with TPM $\BB(G)_n$, etc.
567:
568:
569: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
570: \subsection{Concluding remarks on Markov chain evaluation}
571:
572: At this point we realize the fundamental role of the sequence $r_{n-L+1}$ of the {\co normalized} (to $2p$) modulation indexes. We start introducing two examples and conclude with the general case after.
573:
574: \Example(H2) Let $L=1$, $N_h=3$, $r_0$ even, $r_1$ and $r_2$ odd. We consider the state sequence $\BB(s)_n$ starting from $n=0$. If $\BB(s)_0 \in \C(S)(+)$, the transition is $\BB(s)_1 \in \C(S)(+)$ with TPM $\BB(F)_0$, next the transitions are $\BB(s)_2 \in \C(S)(-)$ with TPM $\BB(G)_1$ and $\BB(s)_3 \in \C(S)(+)$ with TPM $\BB(D)_{I_0}^{I_0/p}\,\BB(G)_2$, etc. So we find the TPM sequence
575: $$
576: \BB(F)_0\vl \BB(G)_1\vl \BB(D)_{I_0}^{I_0/p}\,\BB(G)_2\vl
577: \BB(F)_0\vl \BB(G)_1\vl \BB(D)_{I_0}^{I_0/p}\,\BB(G)_2\vl \BB(F)_0\vl \ldots
578: $$
579: as illustrated at the top of \Figg(MH136)0.\Figg(MH136)2
580:
581: Analogously, if $\BB(s)_0 \in \C(S)(-)$ we find the complemetary sequence illustrated below in \fig(MH136). In both cases the period is $N_c=N_h=3$.
582:
583: \Example(H3) Now let $L=1$ and $N_h=3$, and suppose $r_0$ and $r_2$ even, $r_1$ odd. Depending on the state $\BB(s)_0$, we find the two trajectories illustrated in \Figg(MH137)0. In both case the period is $N_c=2N_h=6$.\Figg(MH137)2
584:
585:
586: \Example(H4) Let $L=1$, $N_c=2$, $r_0$ be even, and $r_1$ be odd. If $\B(s)_0 \in \C(S)(+)$ the sequence of TPMs is illustrated in \Figg(MH138)0 with period $N_c=2 N_h=4$.\Figg(MH138)2
587:
588: From the above examples and from the general rules \e(K44) (see also \fig(MH202)), we see that, starting from $n=0$, the Markov chain
589: $$
590: \BB(s)_0 \vq \BB(s)_1 \vq \BB(s)_2 \,, \ldots
591: $$
592: has two distinct classes of trajectories $\C(T)(\pm)$ which do not communicate each other anytime. The first class $\C(T)(+)$ is determined by the condition $\BB(s)_0 \in \C(S)(+)$ and the second class $\C(T)(-)$ by the condition $\BB(s)_0 \in \C(T)(-)$. We can extend these considerations to the bilateral chain
593: $$
594: \ldots \vq \BB(s)_{-2} \vq \BB(s)_{-1} \vq \BB(s)_0 \vq \BB(s)_1 \vq \BB(s)_2 \,, \ldots
595: $$
596: which may be candidate for stationarity or cyclostationarity.
597:
598: In the underlying probability space, we have to operate under one of the conditions\footnote{In practice, the condition is determined by the remote history of the modulator.}
599: $$
600: \C(C)_+: \BB(s)_0 \in \C(S)(+) \vq \C(C)_-: \BB(s)_0 \in \C(S)(-)
601: $$
602: and correspondingly we find two distinct classes of trajectories:
603: $$
604: \{ \BB(s)_n \} \in \C(T)(+) \q \hb{and} \q \{ \BB(s)_n \} \in \C(T)(-)\;.
605: $$
606: We claim that both classes can be modeled by a non--homogeneous irreducible Markov chain with TPMs $\BB(\pi)_n(+)$ and $\BB(\pi)(-)$, respectively. The cardinality of these conditional chains is $p M^{L-1}$, that is half the cardinality $2p M^{L-1}$ of the original unconditional Markov chain.\footnote{The novelty (to be clarified) is that the state of each conditioned Markov chain is not unique but it changes from $\C(S)(+)$ and $\C(S)(-)$ in dependence of the modulation indexes. However, $\C(T)(+)$ and $\C(T)(-)$ are isomorphic.}
607:
608: The TPMs $\BB(\pi)_n(\pm)$ are obtained from the TPM $\BB(\pi)_n$ of the unconditioned Markov chain with the block partition and the rules seen above and now summarized.
609:
610: \Proposition(P15) Let $\BB(\pi)_n$ be the TPM of the unconditioned Markov chain, which has the form \e(K27) and period $N_c$. The period $N_c$ of $\BB(\pi)_n(\pm)$ depends on the sequence of the normalized modulation indexes $r_0,r_1,\ldots,r_{N_h-1}$, namely
611: $$
612: N_c=\cases{
613: N_h & if the number of the $r_n$ odd in a period $N_h$ is even \cr
614: 2N_h & if the number of the $r_n$ odd in a period $N_h$ is odd. \cr}
615: $$
616: The $\BB(\pi)_n(+)$ in a period starts with $\BB(\pi)_0(+)=\BB(F)_0$ if $r_{-L+1}$ is even ($\BB(s)_1 \in \C(S)(+)$), and with $\BB(\pi)_0(+)=\BB(G)_0$ if $r_{-L+1}$ is odd ($\BB(s)_1 \in \C(S)(-)$). The rest is obtained recursively with the rule \e(K44). Analogously $\BB(\pi)_n(-)$ starts with $\BB(\pi)_0(-)=\BB(F)_0$ if $r_{-L+1}$ is even ($\BB(s)_1 \in \C(S)(-)$), and with $\BB(\pi)_0(-)=\BB(D)_{I_0}^{I_0/p}\,\BB(G)_0$ if $r_{-L+1}$ is odd ($\BB(s)_1 \in \C(S)(+)$), and is obtained with the same rules.~$\Box$
617:
618:
619: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
620: \Paragrafo(PD){Alternative Representation of CPM Modulator}
621: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
622:
623:
624: A promising approach to closed form PSD evaluation is given by reinterpreting the CPM modulator through the {\em polyphase decomposition} (PD) or serial-to-parallel conversion (S/P) of \Figg(MH22)0, where the input symbol sequence $\{a_n\}$ is turned into the word sequence
625: $$
626: \BB(x)_n = \Big[a_{nN_c}, a_{nN_c+1},\cdots, a_{nN_c+N_c-1} \Big]
627: \e(PD2)
628: $$
629: which is itself a stationary sequence with alphabet $\C(A)_M^{N_c}$.\Figg(MH22)2
630:
631: The subsequent SM generating the output words $\{\BB(y)_n\}$ can then be formulated on an equivalent to \e(TT2), with the only difference that now the observation interval of interest becomes of length $T_c$ with the form $\C(I)_n=[nT_c,nT_c+T_c)$. We then have
632: $$
633: \alpha(t) = 2\pi \left[
634: \sum_{m=-\infty}^{nN_c-L} a_m h_m \,\frac{1}{2}
635: + \sum_{m=nN_c-L+1}^{nN_c+N_c-1} a_m h_m \,\varphi(t-mT)
636: \right]
637: \vq t \in \C(I)_n\;,
638: \e(PD4)
639: $$
640: so that the counterpart to \e(K8) becomes
641: $$
642: v(t)=\sum_n \BB(\phi)(t-nT)\,\BB(y)_n
643: \e(PD6)
644: $$
645: where
646: $$
647: \eqalign{&
648: \BB(y)_n
649: = \sigma_{nN_c-L}
650: \,\Big[\delta_{\BB(\scriptstyle a)_n,\BB(\scriptstyle\alpha)}\Big]
651: _{\BB(\scriptstyle\alpha)\in\C(A)_M^{L+N_c-1}}
652: \cr &
653: \BB(\phi)(t)
654: = \eta_{T_c}(t) \left[ \prod_{i=0}^{L-1}
655: \exp \left( j2\pi h_{nN_c-i} \alpha_i \varphi(t+iT) \right) \;
656: \prod_{i=1}^{N_c-1}
657: \exp \left( j2\pi h_{nN_c+i} \beta_i \varphi(t-iT) \right)\right]
658: _{\BB(\scriptstyle\alpha)\in\C(A)_M^{L+N_c-1}}
659: }
660: \z(a)
661: $$
662: Here, $\eta_{T_c}(t)$ is an indicator function active over the interval $[0,T_c)$, $\BB(a)_n=(a_{nN_c-L+1}, \ldots, a_{nN_c+N_c-1})$ collects the input data over a window of length $N_c+L-1$, $\BB(\alpha)=(\alpha_0,\alpha_1, \ldots,\alpha_{L-1},\beta_1,\ldots \beta_{N_c-1}) \in \C(A)_M^L$, and $N_0= M^{L+N_c-1}$ is the cardinality of $\C(A)_M^{L+N_c-1}$. So, $\BB(y)_n$ is a row vector of length $N_0$, while $\BB(\phi)(t)$ is a column vector of the same length.
663:
664: Note that, unlike \e(K8), $\BB(\phi)(t)$ is independent on $n$. Moreover, the second of \ee(PD6)a clearly shows the newly required component driven by the symbols $\beta_i$. The formalization of a proper SM for \e(PD6) is now immediate by exploiting the results of \proposition(P7).
665:
666: \Proposition(P7bis) In a multi--$h$ CPM with alphabet size $M$, memory $L$, rational modulation indexes $h_n=r_n/p$, $n=0,1,\ldots,N_h$, and time-invariance period $N_c$, the states of the time invariant SM $\C(M)_{\hbt{CPM}}^{{\rm (p)}}$ (where p stands for parallel) are defined by
667: $$
668: \BB(\sigma)_n
669: = \left( \sigma_n^{(0)},\sigma_n^{(1)},\ldots,\sigma_n^{(L-1)}\right)
670: = \left( z_{nN_c-L},a_{nN_c-L+1},\ldots,a_{nN_c-1}\right)
671: \e(PD8)
672: $$
673: with a one-to-one relation to the PTI states \e(TT6) given by the sampling relation
674: $$
675: \BB(\sigma)_n = \BB(s)_{nN_c}\;.
676: \e(PD10)
677: $$
678: The output function $\BB(y)_n=\BB(h) \left( \BB(\sigma)_n,\BB(x)_n\right)$ is given by
679: $$
680: \BB(y)_n = W_{2p}^{\sigma_n^{(0)}} \BB(w)_{\sigma_n^{(1)}} \otimes \cdots \otimes \BB(w)_{\sigma_n^{(L-1)}} \otimes \BB(w)_{x_n^{(0)}} \cdots
681: \otimes \BB(w)_{x_n^{(N_c-1)}}\;.~\q\Box
682: \e(PD12)
683: $$
684:
685: According to the ordering in \e(PD12) we can further attempt an equivalent Kronecker formulation of the interpolating filter bank $\BB(\phi)(t)$ as
686: $$
687: \BB(\phi)(t) = \BB(\phi)_{-L+1}(t) \otimes \cdots \otimes \BB(\phi)_{N_c-1}(t)
688: \e(PD14)
689: $$
690: where
691: $$
692: \BB(\phi)_i(t) = \eta_{T_c}(t) \sum_{\alpha\in\C(A)_m} \BB(w)_\alpha
693: \exp \left( j2\pi h_i \alpha \varphi(t-iT) \right)
694: \z(a)
695: $$
696:
697: In addition, by exploiting the sampling relationship \e(PD10), the statistical description of the newly introduced SM immediately follows from \proposition(M4) and \proposition(M4bis), and from general properties of Markov chains. We have
698:
699: \Proposition(M4ter) The $I\times I$ conditional transition matrices $\BB(E)_{\BB(\scriptstyle \alpha),n}$ for $\BB(\alpha)= [\alpha_0, \ldots, \alpha_{N_c-1}]^T$ and $L\ge2$ are defined through the matrix product
700: $$
701: \BB(E_\alpha)
702: = \BB(e)_{\alpha_{N_c-1},nN_c} \,\cdots\,
703: \BB(e)_{\alpha_1,nN_c+1}\,\BB(e)_{\alpha_0,nN_c}
704: \e(PD20)
705: $$
706: with $\BB(e)_{\alpha,n}$ as defined in \e(TT30). In turn, the TPM $\BB(\Pi)$ is built as the TPM matrix product
707: $$
708: \BB(\Pi) = \BB(\pi)_{nN_c+N_c-1}\,\cdots\,\BB(\pi)_{nN_c+1}\, \BB(\pi)_{nN_c}
709: \e(PD22)
710: $$
711: where $\BB(\pi)_n$ is given by \e(TT32). They both are independent on $n$. Observe that, for $L=1$ expressions \e(TT32bis) must be used in place of \e(TT30) and \e(TT32).~$\Box$
712:
713: As a consequence of \e(K27) and \proposition(P15), we also have
714: \Proposition(P15bis) By using the state ordering \e(K22), the TPM matrix $\BB(\Pi)$ takes the block diagonal form
715: $$
716: \tilde{\BB(\Pi)} = \qmatrix{
717: \BB(\Pi)(+) & \B(0) \cr
718: \B(0) & \BB(\Pi)(-) \cr}
719: \e(PD24)
720: $$
721: where $\BB(\Pi)(+)$ contains the samples of $\BB(\Pi)$ at even rows and even columns, while $\BB(\Pi)(-)$ contains the samples of $\BB(\Pi)$ at odd rows and odd columns. Moreover
722: $$
723: \BB(\Pi)(\pm) = \BB(\pi)_{N_c-1}(\pm)\,\cdots\,\BB(\pi)_1(\pm)
724: \,\BB(\pi)_0(\pm)\vq
725: \BB(\Pi)(+) = \BB(\Pi)(-)
726: \e(PD26)
727: $$
728: the second equivalence being assured by the permutation property \e(K27d).~$\Box$
729:
730: Incidentally, an equivalent to \proposition(P15bis) holds for state-transition matrices $\BB(E_\alpha)$, for which we have
731: $$
732: \tilde{\BB(E)}\BB(_\alpha) = \qmatrix{
733: \BB(E_\alpha)(+) & \B(0) \cr
734: \B(0) & \BB(E_\alpha)(-) \cr}\vq
735: \BB(E_\alpha)(+)=\BB(E_\alpha)(-)\;.
736: \e(PD26bis)
737: $$
738:
739: As a remark, we observe that the product formulation of \e(PD20), \e(PD22), and \e(PD26) could be restated through more direct expressions. However, this gives minor insights that are of no direct interest to spectral evaluation.
740:
741: Finally, the APVs of interest, separately for the even and odd trajectories $\C(T)(+)$ and $\C(T)(-)$, can be formulated starting from \e(TT40) to give
742: $$
743: \overinf{\BB(p)} = \BB(\Pi)(\pm)\,\overinf{\BB(p)}\vq
744: \overinf{\BB(p)} = \frac1{p}\,\BB(1)_{p}\,\otimes\,
745: \underbrace{\BB(q)\,\otimes\, \cdots\,\otimes\,\BB(q)}_{L-1}\;
746: \e(PD28)
747: $$
748: Incidentally, since both trajectories $\C(T)(\pm)$ identify irreducible Markov chains, the following limit property is known to hold (e.g. see \bibl(Gantmacher))
749: $$
750: \overinf{\BB(\Pi)}(\pm) \eqq \lim_{k\rightarrow\infty}\BB(\Pi)(\pm)^k
751: = \overinf{\BB(p)}\,\BB(1)_{I/2}^T
752: \e(PD30)
753: $$
754: that is the limit probability of being in a state is independent on the initial state.
755:
756:
757: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
758: \Paragrafo(SE){Closed Form Spectral Evaluation}
759: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
760:
761:
762: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
763: \subsection{Generalities}
764:
765: We follow the PD approach depicted in \fig(MH22), which is more simple and permits the direct use of the theory of \bibl(CarTron74). In fact, the reformulation of the SM in a time invariant form removes the PTI on the output sequence $\{\BB(y)_n\}$ which, unlike $\{\BB(b)_n\}$, is stationary. Once evaluated the correlation
766: $$
767: \BB(r_y)(kT_c) = \E[\BB(y)_m\,\BB(y)_{m-k}^*]
768: \e(SE2)
769: $$
770: and the corresponding PSD
771: $$
772: \BB(R_y)(f) = T_c \sum_k \BB(r_y)(kT_c)\,e^{-j2\pi fkT_c}
773: \e(SE4)
774: $$
775: the output (average) PSD is simply given by
776: $$
777: \overline{R}_v(f) = \BB(\Phi)(f)\, \BB(R_y)(f)\,\BB(\Phi)^*(f)
778: \e(SE6)
779: $$
780: with $\BB(\Phi)(f)=\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\BB(\phi)(t)e^{-j2\pi ft}dt$ the Fourier transform of $\BB(\phi)(t)$. The result \e(SE6) is a straightforward generalization of a widely known property of the interpolating filter to an interpolating filter bank, whose proof can be found in \bibl().
781:
782: A fundamental role is played by the possible {\co presence of lines} (delta functions) in the SDs. In general, $\BB(R_y)(f)$ is given by the sum of a series, which is not convergent. The technique to handle this divergency is the separation of the correlation $\BB(r_y)(kT_c)$ into a {\co continous} part, $\BB(r)_{\BB(\scriptstyle y)}^{(c)}(kT_c)$, and a {\co discrete} part, $\BB(r)_{\BB(\scriptstyle y)}^{(d)}(kT_c)$. The latter is related to the asymptotic behavior of the correlation, and ultimately to the state transition probabilities \e(PD28). The PSDs will be henceforth explicitely written as
783: $$
784: \BB(R_y)(f) = \BB(R)_{\BB(\scriptstyle y)}^{(c)}(f)
785: + \BB(R)_{\BB(\scriptstyle y)}^{(d)}(f)
786: \e(SE10)
787: $$
788: and
789: $$
790: \overline{R}_v(f) = \overline{R}_v^{(c)}(f)
791: + \overline{R}_v^{(d)}(f)\;.
792: \e(SE12)
793: $$
794: We shall see that, when present, the spectral lines occurs at the frequencies multiple of $F_c=1/T_c$.
795:
796:
797: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
798: \subsection{New notation}
799:
800: We preliminarily need to assess some notation according to \bibl(CarTron74). Let the output symbols $\BB(y)_n$ be organized in matrices such that $\BB(Y_x)$ collects (in its columns) the output words corresponding to the input word $\BB(x)$. Evidently, being $I$ the number of states, such words are in number of $I$, and matrix $\BB(Y_x)$ is thus a $N\times I$ matrix. By exploiting the first of \ee(PD6)a and \e(PD12), in Kronecker form it is (see Appendix~C)
801: $$
802: \BB(Y_x) = \BB(V)_{2p} \,\otimes\,
803: \BB(I)_{M^{L-1}}\,\otimes\,
804: \BB(w)_{x_0}\,\otimes\,\cdots\,\otimes\,\BB(w)_{x_{N_c-1}}
805: \e(SE20)
806: $$
807: where
808: $$
809: \BB(V)_{2p} = [W_{2p}^j]_{j\in\C(N)_{2p}}
810: = [1, W_{2p}, W_{2p}^2,\cdots, W_{2p}^{2p-1}]\;.
811: \z(a)
812: $$
813: is a row vector. To discriminate between trajectories $\C(T)(\pm)$, we can further introduce the notation
814: $$
815: \BB(Y_x)(+) = \BB(V)_{p} \,\otimes\,
816: \BB(I)_{M^{L-1}}\,\otimes\,
817: \BB(w)_{x_0}\,\otimes\,\cdots\,\otimes\,\BB(w)_{x_{N_c-1}} \vq
818: \BB(Y_x)(-) = W_{2p}\,\BB(Y_x)(+) \;.
819: \e(SE22)
820: $$
821:
822:
823: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
824: \subsection{Presence of spectral lines in $\BB(R_y)$}
825:
826: Spectral lines depend on the limit behavior of the Markow chain, specifically they are related to the limit mean value of $\BB(y)_n$, namely
827: $$
828: \BB(m_y) = \lim_{n\rightarrow\infty} \E[\BB(y)_n]\;,
829: \e(SE14)
830: $$
831: where APVs \e(PD28) hold. Now, the mean \e(SE14) can be evaluated as
832: $$
833: \BB(m_y)(\pm) = \sum_{\BB(\scriptstyle x)} \P[\BB(x)_\infty = \BB(x)]
834: \BB(Y_x)(\pm)\,\overinf{\BB(p)}
835: \e(SE14bis)
836: $$
837: from which we have the following general result (the proof is reported in Appendix~D)
838:
839: \Proposition(SP2)
840: When $p>1$, no spectral lines occurr in CPM and we have
841: $$
842: \BB(R)_{\BB(\scriptstyle y)}^{(d)}(f) = \BB(0)
843: \vq p>1\;.
844: \ee(SE24)a
845: $$
846: Conversely, when $p=1$, that is for integer modulation factors, spectral lines are found and it is
847: $$
848: \BB(R_y)^{(d)}(f) = \BB(r_y)^{(d)} \sum_k \delta(f-kF_c)\vq p=1
849: \z(b)
850: $$
851: where
852: $$
853: \BB(r_y)^{(d)} = \underbrace{[\BB(q\,q)^*]\,\otimes\,\cdots\,\otimes\,[\BB(q\,q)^*]}_{N_c+L-1}
854: \e(SE34)
855: $$
856: and $F_c=1/T_c$.~$\Box$
857:
858: We note that \proposition(SP2) is in accordance to the results of the literature on single-$h$ CPM \bibl(Comm81).
859:
860:
861: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
862: \subsection{Continuous spectrum evaluation of $\BB(R_y)$}
863:
864: In order to evaluate the continuous part of the spectrum we preliminarily need to further explicit the correlation $\BB(r_y)$ in \e(SE2) following the development in \bibl(CarTron74).
865:
866: For the value at $nT_c=0$ (autocorrelation) we have (see (36) in \bibl(CarTron74))
867: $$
868: \BB(r_y)(0) = \E[\BB(y)_m\,\BB(y)_m^*]
869: = \sum_{\BB(\scriptstyle x)} \P[\BB(x)_m=\BB(x)]
870: \,\BB(Y_x)(\pm)\,{\rm diag}(\overinf{\BB(p)})\,\BB(Y_x)^*(\pm)\;.
871: \e(CS1)
872: $$
873: where, by exploiting the Kronecker product expressions \e(PD28) and \e(SE22), and after some little algebra, we have
874: $$
875: \BB(r_y)(0) = \underbrace{{\rm diag}(\BB(q))\,\otimes\,\cdots
876: \,\otimes\,{\rm diag}(\BB(q))}_{N_c+L-1}\;.
877: \e(CS2)
878: $$
879:
880: For the values at $n\neq0$, we better distinguish between positive and negative values. For $n>0$ we have (see (37)-(39) in \bibl(CarTron74))
881: $$
882: \BB(r_y)(nT_s) = \BB(C)_2(\pm)\,\BB(\Pi)(\pm)^{n-1}\,\BB(C)_1(\pm)\vq n>0
883: \e(CS4)
884: $$
885: where
886: $$
887: \eqalign{
888: \BB(C)_1(\pm) &= \sum_{\BB(\scriptstyle x)} \P[\BB(x)_m=\BB(x)]
889: \BB(E_x)(\pm)\,{\rm diag}(\overinf{\BB(p)})\,\BB(Y_x)^*(\pm)\cr
890: \BB(C)_2(\pm) &= \sum_{\BB(\scriptstyle x)} \P[\BB(x)_m=\BB(x)]
891: \BB(Y_x)(\pm)\;.
892: }
893: \z(a)
894: $$
895: Instead, for $n<0$ we can exploit the relation
896: $$
897: \BB(r_y)(-nT_s) = \BB(r_y)^*(nT_s) \;.
898: \e(CS5)
899: $$
900:
901: Observe that, the correlation samples of the two trajectories coincide since $\BB(E_x)(+)=\BB(E_x)(-)$ and $\BB(\Pi)(+)=\BB(\Pi)(-)$ (see \e(PD26) and \e(PD26bis)), while the $W_{2p}$ difference between $\BB(Y_x)(+)$ and $\BB(Y_x)(-)$ (see \e(SE22)) is removed by the complex conjugation in $\BB(C)_1$.
902:
903: In addition, we must take into account for the limit value $\BB(r_y)^{(d)}$, which (when not null) is responsible of spectral lines. According to (40) in \bibl(CarTron74) we can write
904: $$
905: \BB(r_y)^{(d)} = \BB(m_y)(\pm)\,\BB(m_y)^*(\pm)
906: = \BB(C)_2(\pm)\,\overinf{\BB(\Pi)}\,\BB(C)_1(\pm)\;.
907: \e(CS7)
908: $$
909: As the reader can verify by exploiting \e(PD30), this expression is not in contrast with the formulation in \e(SE34).
910:
911: Now, the continuous spectrum becomes
912: $$
913: \eqalign{
914: \BB(R_y)^{(c)}(f)
915: & = T_c\,\sum_n \Big(\BB(r_y)(nT_c) - \BB(r_y)^{(d)}\Big)
916: \,e^{-j2\pi fnT_c}\cr
917: % & = T_c\,\Big(\BB(r_y)(0) - \BB(r_y)^{(d)}\Big) +
918: % 2T_c\Re\left[\sum_{n=1}^{+\infty} \Big(\BB(r_y)(nT_c) - %\BB(r_y)^{(d)}\Big)\,e^{-j2\pi fnT_c} \right] \cr
919: }
920: \e(CS10)
921: $$
922: and, by then relying on the symmetry in \e(CS5) and on the results of \bibl(CarTron74), the PSD can be written as
923: $$
924: \eqalign{
925: \BB(R_y)^{(c)}(f)
926: & = T_c \,\Big(\BB(r_y)(0) - \BB(r_y)^{(d)}\Big) + \null\cr
927: & \hspace*{-8mm} \null +
928: 2T_c\,\Re\left[\BB(C)_2(\pm)\,\Big(\BB(I)_{I_0}-\overinf{\BB(\Pi)}\Big)\,
929: \Big(e^{j2\pi fT_c}\BB(I)_{I_0}-
930: \BB(\Pi)(\pm)+\overinf{\BB(\Pi)}\Big)^{-1}\,\BB(C)_1(\pm)\right]\;.
931: }
932: \e(CS12)
933: $$
934: Note that this is a closed-form, unlike the results available in CPM literature (e.g., see \bibl(Wilson81), \bibl(Ilyin04)) where the PSD is evaluated through direct numerical evaluation of the series \e(CS10).
935:
936: We also underline that the matrix inversion in \e(CS12) can be circumvented. The details can be found in \bibl(CarTron74), while here we report the final result. In particular, the inversion of an $I\times I$ matrix $(\lambda\B(I)-\B(F))$, with $\lambda=e^{j2\pi fT_c}$, can be performed by
937: $$
938: (\lambda\B(I)-\B(F))^{-1} = \frac{\sum_{k=0}^{I-1}\BB(G)_k\,\lambda^{I-1-k}}{d(\lambda)}\vq
939: \BB(G)_k = \sum_{m=0}^k d_{k-m}\,\BB(F)^m
940: $$
941: where
942: $$
943: d(x) = {\rm trace}\Big(x\B(I)-\B(F)\Big) = \sum_{k=0}^I d_k\,x^{I-k}\;.
944: $$
945:
946:
947: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
948: \subsection{Power spectral density of $v(t)$}
949:
950: The derivation of the power spectral density of $v(t)$ can now be straightforwardly obtained by use of \e(SE6). For ease of computational evaluation, here we introduce the matices
951: $$
952: \BB(V_x)(f) = \BB(\Phi)(f)\,\BB(Y_x)(+)
953: \e(AD2)
954: $$
955: which are row matrices of dimension $1\times I_0$, namely $\BB(V_x)(f) = [V\BB(_{x,s})(f)]_{\BB(\scriptstyle s)\in \C(S)(+)}$, whose element $V\BB(_{x,s})(f)$ can be obtained from (see also \ee(PD6)a)
956: $$
957: \eqalign{
958: v\BB(_{x,s})(t) & = \eta_{T_c}(t)\; W_{2p}^{s^{(0)}}\,\prod_{i=1}^{L-1}
959: \exp \left( j2\pi \,h_{nN_c-L+i} \,s^{(i)} \,\varphi(t+(L-i)T) \right) \;\cdot\null\cr
960: & \qquad\null\cdot\;
961: \prod_{i=0}^{N_c-1}
962: \exp \left( j2\pi \, h_{nN_c+i} \, y^{(i)} \varphi(t-iT) \right)
963: }
964: \z(a)
965: $$
966: through an ordinary Fourier transform, that is $v\BB(_{x,s})(t)\arrf V\BB(_{x,s})(f)$.
967:
968: So, in the general case of non-integer modulation factors ($p>1$) from \e(CS1) and \e(CS12) we obtain
969: $$
970: \eqalign{
971: \overline{R}_v^{(d)}(f) & = 0 \cr
972: \overline{R}_v^{(c)}(f)
973: & = T_c\, K_0(f) +
974: 2T_c\,\Re\left[\BB(K)_2(f)\,
975: \Big(\BB(I)_{I_0}-\overinf{\BB(\Pi)}\Big)\,
976: \Big(e^{j2\pi fT_c}\BB(I)_{I_0}-
977: \BB(\Pi)(\pm)+\overinf{\BB(\Pi)}\Big)^{-1}\,\BB(K)_1(f)
978: \right]
979: }
980: \e(AD4)
981: $$
982: where
983: $$
984: \eqalign{
985: K_0(f)
986: & = \sum_{\BB(\scriptstyle x)} \P[\BB(x)_m=\BB(x)]
987: \BB(V_x)(f)\,{\rm diag}(\overinf{\BB(p)})\,\BB(V_x)^*(f) \cr
988: \BB(K)_1(f)
989: & = \BB(C)_1(+)\,\BB(\Phi)^*(f)
990: = \sum_{\BB(\scriptstyle x)} \P[\BB(x)_m=\BB(x)]
991: \BB(E_x)(+)\,{\rm diag}(\overinf{\BB(p)})\,\BB(V_x)^*(f) \cr
992: \BB(K)_2 (f)
993: & = \BB(\Phi)(f)\,\BB(C)_2(+)
994: = \sum_{\BB(\scriptstyle x)} \P[\BB(x)_m=\BB(x)]\BB(V_x)(f)
995: }
996: \z(a)
997: $$
998:
999: In the very special case of integer modulation factors ($p=1$), we recall \e(SE34) to write the spectral lines as
1000: $$
1001: \overline{R}_v^{(d)}(f)
1002: = \sum_k |\BB(K)_2(kF_c)\,\overinf{\BB(p)}|^2 \delta(f-kF_c)
1003: \e(AD6)
1004: $$
1005: while the continuous part of the spectrum in \e(AD4) needs a correction factor
1006: $$
1007: \Delta\overline{R}_v^{(d)}(f)
1008: = -|\BB(K)_2(f)\,\overinf{\BB(p)}|^2
1009: \e(AD7)
1010: $$
1011: according to \e(CS12).
1012:
1013:
1014: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1015: \Paragrafo(EX){Examples}
1016: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1017:
1018: In this section we give some examples of PSDs evaluated through \e(AD4). We begin by showing some results for {\em full response} CPM signals (i.e. with $L=1$) in \Figg(EX2)0. All plots refer to a {\em continuous phase frequency shift keying} (CPFSK) employing a phase response
1019: $$
1020: \varphi(t) = \cases{0&, $t<0$\cr \frac{t}{2LT}&, $0\le t< LT$\cr\frac12&, $t\ge LT$}
1021: \e(PR2)
1022: $$
1023: and for different choices of the multi-$h$ sequence factors. Examples were taken from \bibl(Wilson81) and \bibl(Mazur81).\Figg(EX2)2
1024:
1025: A further example of full response signaling taken from \bibl(Wilson81) is shown in \Figg(EX4)0, where CPFSK is compared to {\em raised cosine} (RC) signaling
1026: $$
1027: \varphi(t) = \cases{0&, $t<0$\cr \frac{t}{2LT}-\frac1{4\pi}\,\sin\left(2\pi\,\frac{t}{LT}\right)&,
1028: $0\le t< LT$\cr\frac12&, $t\ge LT$}
1029: \e(PR4)
1030: $$
1031: \Figg(EX4)2
1032:
1033: A final example is given for the partial response multi-$h$ CPM signaling formats of \bibl(Perrins05) in \Figg(EX6)0. The figure shows two RC formats, and one binary {\em Gaussian minimum shift keying} (GMSK) format with $L=4$, having a phase response
1034: $$
1035: \varphi(t) = \hat{\Phi}\Big(K\,(\fract tT-\fract32)\Big)
1036: - \hat{\Phi}\Big(K\,(\fract tT-\fract52)\Big)
1037: \vq \hat{\Phi}(a)=a\,\Phi(a)+\frac1{\sqrt{2\pi}}e^{-\frac12t^2}
1038: \e(PR6)
1039: $$
1040: where $K=\pi/(2\sqrt{\ln2})$, and $\Phi(a)=\frac1{\sqrt{2\pi}}\int_{-\infty}^ae^{-\frac12t^2}dt$ is the Gaussian normalized cumulative distribution function.
1041: \Figg(EX6)2
1042:
1043:
1044: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1045: \Paragrafo(CO){Conclusions}
1046: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1047:
1048:
1049: \section*{Acknowledgements}
1050:
1051:
1052:
1053: \clearpage
1054:
1055: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1056: \Appendix
1057: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1058:
1059: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1060: \subsection{Sketch of the proof of \proposition(M4bis)}
1061:
1062: We proceed step by step. For $L=1$ we have
1063: $$
1064: \Big[
1065: \delta_{i_0,(j_0+r_n\alpha)_{2p}}
1066: \Big] _{i_0,j_0\in \C(N)_{2p}} = \BB(D)_{2p}^{r_n\alpha}
1067: $$
1068: which is a square matrix obtained by cyclically shifting the main diagonal to the left by $r_n\alpha$ positions. The result can be obtained by evaluating the $r_n\alpha$ power of the single step ciclical shift matrix $\BB(D)_{2p}=\BB(D)_{2p}^1$. This corresponds to \e(TT32bis).
1069:
1070: For $L=2$, we have
1071: $$
1072: \Big[
1073: \delta_{i_0,(j_0+r_{n-1}j_1)_{2p}}\,
1074: \delta_{i_1,\alpha}
1075: \Big] _{i_0,j_0\in \C(N)_{2p},\, i_1,j_1\in\C(A)_M}
1076: = \Big[
1077: \delta_{i_0,(j_0+r_{n-1}j_1)_{2p}}
1078: \Big] _{i_0,j_0\in \C(N)_{2p},\,j_1\in\C(A)_M} \otimes \Big[
1079: \delta_{i_1,\alpha}
1080: \Big] _{i_1\in\C(A)_M}
1081: $$
1082: where the first term can be further explicited as
1083: $$
1084: \eqalign{
1085: \Big[
1086: \delta_{i_0,(j_0+r_{n-1}j_1)_{2p}}
1087: \Big] _{i_0,j_0\in \C(N)_{2p},\,j_1\in\C(A)_M}
1088: & = \sum_{\beta\in\C(A)_M}\Big[
1089: \delta_{i_0,(j_0+r_{n-1}\beta)_{2p}}\,\delta_{\beta,j_1}
1090: \Big] _{i_0,j_0\in \C(N)_{2p},\,j_1\in\C(A)_M} \cr
1091: & = \sum_{\beta\in\C(A)_M}\Big[
1092: \delta_{i_0,(j_0+r_{n-1}\beta)_{2p}}
1093: \Big] _{i_0,j_0\in \C(N)_{2p}}\,\otimes\,\Big[
1094: \delta_{\beta,j_1}
1095: \Big] _{j_1\in\C(A)_M} \cr
1096: }
1097: $$
1098: to obtain
1099: $$
1100: \BB(e)_{\alpha,n} = \sum_{\beta\in\C(A)_M}
1101: \underbrace{\BB(D)_{2p}^{r_{n-1}\beta}}_{2p\times 2p}\,
1102: \otimes\,\underbrace{\BB(w)_{\beta}^T}_{1\times M}\,
1103: \otimes\,\underbrace{\BB(w)_{\alpha}}_{M\times 1}\;.
1104: $$
1105:
1106: The prospect is similar for $L=3$, where
1107: $$
1108: \Big[
1109: \delta_{i_0,(j_0+r_{n-2}j_1)_{2p}}
1110: \Big] _{i_0,j_0\in \C(N)_{2p},\,j_1\in\C(A)_M}
1111: \otimes \Big[
1112: \delta_{i_1,j_2}
1113: \Big] _{i_1,j_2\in\C(A)_M}
1114: \otimes \Big[
1115: \delta_{i_2,\alpha}
1116: \Big] _{i_2\in\C(A)_M}
1117: $$
1118: with the central matrix being an identity. The general result is thus
1119: $$
1120: \BB(e)_{\alpha,n} = \sum_{\beta\in\C(A)_M}
1121: \BB(D)_{2p}^{r_{n-L+1}\beta}\,
1122: \otimes\,\BB(w)_{\beta}^T\,
1123: \otimes\,\underbrace{\BB(I)_{M}\,\otimes\,\cdots\,\otimes\,\BB(I)_{M}}_{L-2}\,
1124: \otimes\,\BB(w)_{\alpha}
1125: $$
1126: where the kronecker product of $L-2$ occurrences of $\BB(I)_{M}$ is simply $\BB(I)_{M^L}$. As a consequence, \e(TT30) is valid.
1127:
1128:
1129: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1130: \subsection{Sketch of the proof of \e(TT40)}
1131:
1132: Being $\BB(\pi)_n$ expressed as a Kronecker product in \e(TT32), we look for an eigenvector with the Kronecker structure
1133: $$
1134: \BB(p)_{n} = \underbrace{\BB(u)_0}_{2p\times1} \otimes
1135: \underbrace{\BB(u)_1}_{M\times1} \otimes \cdots\otimes
1136: \underbrace{\BB(u)_{L-1}}_{M\times1}
1137: $$
1138: providing the set of equations
1139: $$
1140: \left\{\eqalign{
1141: & \left(\sum_{\beta\in\C(A)_M}
1142: \BB(D)_{2p}^{r_{n-L+1}\beta}\,\otimes\,\BB(w)_{\beta}^T \right)
1143: \left(\BB(u)_0\otimes\BB(u)_1\right)
1144: = \BB(u)_0 \cr
1145: & \BB(I)_{M}\BB(u)_2 = \BB(u)_1 \cr
1146: & \vdots \cr
1147: & \BB(I)_{M}\BB(u)_{L-1} = \BB(u)_{L-2} \cr
1148: & \BB(q) = \BB(u)_{L-1} \cr
1149: }\right.
1150: $$
1151: By solving the system we immediately obtain $\BB(u)_1=\cdots=\BB(u)_{L-1}=\BB(q)$, plus the remaining equation
1152: $$
1153: \sum_{\beta\in\C(A)_M}
1154: \left( \BB(D)_{2p}^{r_{n-L+1}\beta}\BB(u)_0\right)\,\otimes\,
1155: \left(\BB(w)_{\beta}^T\BB(q)\right)
1156: = \sum_{\beta\in\C(A)_M}
1157: \BB(D)_{2p}^{r_{n-L+1}\beta}\BB(u)_0\;q_\beta = \BB(u)_0
1158: $$
1159: which is solved by $\BB(u)_0=\frac1{2p}\,\BB(1)_{2p}$, where $\BB(1)_{2p}$ is a column vector of length $2p$ with all entries set to $1$. Note that the solution is valid independently on $r_{n-L+1}$, and provides \e(TT40).
1160:
1161:
1162: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1163: \subsection{Validity of \e(SE20)}
1164:
1165: By exploiting the first of \ee(PD6)a and \e(PD12), the matrix $\BB(Y_x)$ is
1166: $$
1167: \eqalign{
1168: \BB(Y_x)
1169: & = \Big[Y\BB(_x)(\BB(i),\BB(j))\Big]
1170: _{\BB(\scriptstyle i)\in\C(A)^{N_c+L-1}, \BB(\scriptstyle j)\in\C(S)}\cr
1171: % & = \Big[W_{2p}^{j_0}\,\delta_{[j_1\,\cdots,j_{L-1}\,
1172: % \BB(\scriptstyle x)],\BB(\scriptstyle i)}\Big]
1173: % _{\BB(\scriptstyle i)\in\C(A)^{N_c+L-1}, j_0\in\C(N)_{2p},
1174: % j_1,\ldots,j_{L-1}\in\C(A)_M}\cr
1175: & =\Big[W_{2p}^{j_0}\,\delta_{i_0,j_1}\,\cdots\,\delta_{i_{L-2},j_{L-1}}\,
1176: \delta_{x_0,i_{L-1}}\,\cdots,\delta_{x_{N_c-1},i_{N_c+L-2}}\Big]
1177: _{i_0,\ldots,i_{N_c+L-2}\in\C(A)_M, j_0\in\C(N)_{2p},
1178: j_1,\ldots,j_{L-1}\in\C(A)_M}\cr
1179: }
1180: $$
1181: where $\BB(i)=[i_0,\ldots,i_{N_c+L-2}]^T$ and $\BB(j)=[j_0,\ldots,j_{L-1}]^T$. It is now straightforward to see that the equivalent Kronecker form is given by \e(SE20).
1182:
1183: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1184: \subsection{Sketch of the proof of \proposition(SP2)}
1185:
1186: For $p>1$, we exploit the Kronecker products in \e(PD28) and \e(SE22) in \e(SE14bis), and observe that $\BB(V)_p\,\BB(1)_p=0$. We then immediately obtain $\BB(m_y)(\pm) = \BB(0)$ thus assuring that {\em no} spectral lines are found, as stated in \ee(SE24)a.
1187:
1188: Instead, for $p=1$ we have $\BB(V)_1\,\BB(1)_1=1\cdot1=1$, in which case it is easy to show that
1189: $$
1190: \BB(m_y)(+) = \underbrace{\BB(q)\,\otimes\,\cdots\,\otimes\,\BB(q)}_{N_c+L-1}
1191: \vq \BB(m_y)(-) = W_{2p}\,\BB(m_y)(+)\;.
1192: $$
1193: Then, from the equivalence
1194: $$
1195: \eqalign{
1196: \BB(r_y)^{(d)}(nT_s)
1197: & = \BB(m_y)(+)\,\BB(m_y)^*(+)
1198: = \BB(m_y)(-)\,\BB(m_y)^*(-) \cr
1199: & = \underbrace{[\BB(q\,q)^*]\,\otimes\,\cdots\,\otimes\,[\BB(q\,q)^*]}_{N_c+L-1}
1200: }
1201: $$
1202: we straightforwardly obtain \ee(SE24)b, by recalling \e(SE4).
1203: