Partially-Coherent Distributed Space-Time Codes

with Differential Encoder and Decoder

Kiran T. and B. Sundar Rajan
Dept. of ECE, Indian Institute of Science
Bangalore-560012, India.
Email: kirant,bsrajan@ece.iisc.ernet.in
AbstractDistributed space-time coding is a means of achiev-
ing diversity through cooperative communication in a wireless
relay network. In this paper, we consider a transmission protocol
that follows a two-stage model: transmission from source to relays
in the rst stage, followed by a simple relaying technique from
relays to destination. The relays transmit a vector, which is a
transformation of the received vector by a relay-specic unitary
transformation. We assume that the relays do not have any
channel information, while the destination has only a partial-
channel knowledge, by which we mean that destination knows
only the relay-to-destination channel. We derive a Chernoff
bound on the pairwise error probability and propose code design
criteria. A second contribution is the differential encoding and
decoding scheme for this setup, which is different from the
existing ones. Furthermore, differential codes from cyclic division
algebra are proposed that achieve full diversity. For our setup
with two relays, a Generalized PSK code is shown to achieve full
diversity, for which the decoding complexity is independent of
code size.
I. INTRODUCTION
Cooperative communication is a promising approach for
achieving reliable communication without the need for mul-
tiple antennas at individual nodes. In contrast to the sin-
gle user colocated multiple antenna transmission, cooperative
communication is based on the relay channel model where the
collection of distributed antennas belonging to multiple users
is exploited for achieving diversity. For details on cooperative
diversity techniques, we refer the readers to [1]-[5].
In this paper, we are interested in the two-stage transmission
model proposed in [4], [5]. In the rst stage (constituting
T channel uses), the source transmits to relays and in the
next stage (constituting another T channel uses), the relays
transmit to the destination. The relays transmit a vector that
is a linear transformation of the received vector by a relay-
specic unitary transformation. In [4], [5], it is assumed that
the relays do not have any channel information but destination
has knowledge of both source to relay and relay to destination
channel. In this paper, we consider the situation where relays
have no channel knowledge and the destination only has a
partial-channel knowledge, by which we mean that it knows
only the relay to destination part of the channel. This reduces
both the signaling overhead as well as the complexity involved
in channel estimation at the destination. The central theme of
this paper is to minimize complexity at all nodes including
the source and the destination. Toward this end, we propose
coding schemes that have reduced complexity compared to the
model proposed in [4], [5].
The main contributions of this paper are as listed below.
The coherent distributed space-time coding model pro-
posed in [4], [5] is generalized to a partially-coherent
model. For the maximum-likelihood (ML) detector (con-
ditioned on partial-channel knowledge), a Chernoff bound
on the pairwise error probability (PEP) is derived and
code design criteria is proposed for achieving full diver-
sity.
A second major contribution is construction of codes. We
introduce a differential encoding and decoding scheme
for our setup. An important distinction of this differential
scheme is that the relays are not allowed to decode. All
earlier proposed distributed differential codes (see [12]
and references therein) are for the decode and forward
scheme, where the relays decode the source transmitted
vector and then re-encode them for transmitting to the
destination.
For this differential setup, we propose a class of full di-
versity achieving codes using cyclic division algebras [9].
For a relay network with only 2 relay nodes, we show
that the Generalized PSK codes proposed in [10] for
noncoherent point to point communication can be adapted
to the relay network in a differential encoding setup. As
in [10], the complexity of the corresponding differential
decoder is independent of the code size.
First, we introduce few notations that are used in this paper.
For a complex matrix X,

X, X
t
, and X

denote the conjugate,

the transpose and the conjugate transpose of X, respectively.
Also, det(X) (or [X[) indicates the determinant while Tr(X)
indicates trace of X. We use [x[ to denote the absolute value
of a complex number x. If x is a complex random vector,
x (^(0, ) denotes that x is complex Gaussian, with zero
mean and covariance .
A. The System model
The network (see Fig. 1) consists of a source node, a
destination node and R other relay nodes which aid the
source in communicating information to the destination. The
nodes are placed randomly and independently according to
some distribution. Each node including source and destination
is equipped with one transmit and one receive antenna and
are subject to a half-duplex constraint, i.e., a node cannot
ISIT 2006, Seattle, USA, July 9 - 14, 2006
547 1424405041/06/$20.002006IEEE
f1
relay nodes
gR fR
fR1 gR1
g2 f2
g1
destination
source
Fig. 1. Wireless relay network
transmit and receive simultaneously. The channel path gains
from source to i th relay, f
i
and from j th relay to destination
g
j
are all independently and identically distributed complex
Gaussian variables with zero mean and unit variance. We
assume that the nodes are synchronized at the symbol level.
Every transmission cycle from source to destination com-
prises of two stages. In the rst stage, source transmits a T
length vector

P
1
Ts which the relays receive. The signal vec-
tor s is from a codebook consisting of o = s
1
, s
2
, , s
L

information vectors, with Es

s = 1, so that P
1
T is the average
transmit power. The received vector at ith relay node is
r
i
=
_
P
1
Tf
i
s +v
i
, with v
i
(^(0, I). (1)
In the second half of the cycle, all the relay nodes are
scheduled to transmit together (assuming symbol level syn-
chronization). The jth relay node transmits a T length vector
t
j
which is a function of the received vector r
j
. The relays
are only allowed to linearly process the received vector. To be
precise, the jth relay is equipped with a xed T T unitary
matrix A
j
(called relay matrix) and it is scheduled to transmit
t
j
=
_
P
2
P
1
+ 1
A
j
r
j
. (2)
In [13], a different relay transmission is considered for coher-
ent reception at the destination.
The vector received at the destination is given by
y =
_
P
1
P
2
T
P
1
+ 1
R

j=1
g
j
A
j
r
j
+w =
_
P
1
P
2
T
P
1
+ 1
Sh +n (3)
where
h =
_
f
1
g
1
f
R
g
R

t
, v =
_
P
2
P
1
+ 1
R

j=1
g
j
A
j
v
j
,
S =
_
A
1
s A
R
s

, (4)
w (^(0, I) is the additive noise at the destination and
n = v +w. The collection of matrices
T =
__
A
1
s A
R
s

: s o
_
will be called a distributed Space-Time Block Code (STBC).
II. PAIRWISE ERROR PROBABILITY
Notice that the channel h is product of two Gaussian
channels. In this paper we assume that the destination has
knowledge of the g
i
but does not know f
i
. For this case,
the received vector y conditioned on g
j
and transmitted
codeword matrix S is
P(y [ g
j
, S) =
1

T
[
y
[
exp(Tr(
1
y
yy

)), where (5)

Var(y) =
y
= S
h
S

+
n
(6)

h
= diag
_
[g
1
[
2
, , [g
R
[
2
_
,
n
= I
T
(7)
=
P
1
P
2
T
P
1
+ 1
and (8)
=
_
1 +P
1
+P
2

R
i=1
[g
i
[
2
P
1
+ 1
_
. (9)
The partially-ML decoder decodes to a codeword

S, where

S = arg max
SD
P(y [ g
j
, S). (10)
The total transmit power is PT, where P = P
1
+ P
2
R. In
this paper we assume that the transmitter uses half of the
total power and the remaining half is shared equally among
the relays, i.e., P
1
= P/2 and P
2
= P/2R. For this power
allocation, we have
= /
PT
2
_
R +

R
i=1
[g
i
[
2
_. (11)
Theorem 1: Suppose S
i
, S
j
are two codewords in T and
R
ij
= S

i
S
j
. Then conditioned on g
j
, the Chernoff bound
on PEP for the partially-coherent ML decoder (10) is
P
i,j
() =

I
R
+
1/2
h
R
ii

1/2
h

I
R
+
1/2
h
R
jj

1/2
h

1
2

I
2R
+
h
()
1/2
Z

ij
Z
ij

h
()
1/2

(12)
for Z
ij
=
_
S
i
S
j

,
h
() = diag(
h
, (1 )
h
) and any
, 0 < < 1.
Furthermore, if R
ii
= R
jj
= K, Z
ij
is a full rank matrix
and = / is large, then
P
i,j
()

R
[K[
[(1 )
h
[

ij
Z
ij

=
_

R
[(1 )
h
[
_
1
[K R
ji
K
1
R
ij
[
, (13)
which attains minimum value for = 1/2.
Proof: Follows from the results in [6].
The expression in (13) has to be averaged over the distribu-
tion of g
i
to understand the effects of relay channel (see [17]
for details). But the expression for in (11) and (13) show that
the effect of g
i
on PEP can be separated from the effects of
the distributed code, and so far as code design is concerned,
the theorem says that the code is good (in high SNR regime)
ISIT 2006, Seattle, USA, July 9 - 14, 2006
548
if
_
S
i
S
j

has full rank for any pair of codewords S

i
,= S
j
.
A code T with the property that every matrix
_
S
i
S
j

is
full-rank for any S
i
,= S
j
T is said to achieve full diversity.
A necessary condition for this is T 2R.
One of the conditions for arriving at (13) is that R
ii
= K for
all codewords S
i
T. A special class of distributed codes that
satisfy this condition is the unitary codes for which K = tI
R
,
where t is a constant real number. Although the theorem holds
for the general case, we restrict ourselves to unitary codes in
the rest of this paper. As mentioned earlier, for achieving full
diversity we need T 2R. A similar result exists in case of
noncoherent space-time codes for colocated antennas, where T
cannot be less than twice the number of transmit antennas. To
overcome this restriction, differential ST codes was introduced
in [7], [8]. In this paper we introduce differential coding for
relay networks and demonstrate that similar advantages hold
here as well.
III. DISTRIBUTED STBC CONSTRUCTION
In this section, we introduce the differential scheme along
with few code constructions. We will be using a few more
notations in this section. For a vector space V over a eld
F, GL(V ) denotes the set of all F-linear vector space iso-
morphisms from V to V , M
n
(F) denotes the set of all
n n matrices over F and GL
n
(F) denotes the subset of
all invertible matrices in M
n
(F).
A. Differential Code construction
1) Ingredients: The ingredients of our distributed code are
A set of T T unitary relay matrices / =
A
1
, A
2
, , A
R
. Each relay is equipped with exactly
one unitary matrix A
j
.
The source node is equipped with a cod (s, (), where s is
a T 1 complex vector and ( = G
1
, G
2
, , G
L
is a
nite set of T T unitary matrices such that G
i
s ,= G
j
s
for G
i
,= G
j
( I
T
.
The sets ( and / should satisfy the following conditions.
1) G
j
A
k
= A
k
G
j
k, j.
2) S

S = I
R
where S =
_
A
1
s A
2
s A
R
s

is
called the initial matrix.
2) Encoding Recipe: The transmission follows the two
stage per cycle model as in the previous section, with the
only difference being the differential encoding performed at
the source node. If s(k 1) denotes the transmitted vector by
the source node in the (k 1)th cycle, the vector transmitted
in the kth cycle s(k) is of the form s(k) = G(k)s
k1
, where
G(k) ( is chosen based on the information to be transmitted.
The vector s is the initial vector used by the source.
Now, the received vector at the destination in the kth cycle
is
y(k) =

C(k)h +n(k), where
C(k) =
_
A
1
s(k) A
R
s(k)

= G(k)
_
A
1
s(k 1) A
R
s(k 1)

,
for some G(k) (. Therefore
y(k) =

G(k)S(k 1)h +n(k)
= G(k)y(k 1) + n(k), (14)
where n(k) = G(k)n(k 1) +n(k) is Gaussian with n(k)
(^(0, 2
n
). Thus the distributed STBC is now given by
T =
_
G
_
A
1
s A
R
s

: G = I
R
or

k
G
k
, G
k
(
_
.
Since any G
j
( is unitary and the initial matrix S is also
unitary, any matrix C T satisfy C

C = I
R
and hence our
distributed STBC is a unitary code.
Example 1: Let T = R = 3 and
A
1
= I
3
, A
2
=

0 0
3
1 0 0
0 1 0

, A
3
= A
2
2
,
where
3
denotes the primitive cube-root of unity. We choose
s =
_
1 0 0

t
and ( = G), the cyclic group generated by
G = A
2
. Notice that the above choice of ingredients satisfy
both the conditions 1) and 2) mentioned above. Also, [([ = 9
and so the distributed STBC consists of 9 matrices.
3) Decoding: As far as the destination is concerned, the R
relays can be thought of as R colocated (virtual) antennas.
Then the transmission from these R (virtual) antennas is
exactly the differential space-time modulation considered in
[7] with S =
_
A
1
s A
2
s A
R
s

as the initial matrix

transmission, followed by successive differential encoding
using matrices from the set (. Thus any differential space-
time modulation code should be useful in our setup, with
the only constraint being on the choice of the initial uni-
tary matrix, which is constructed in a special manner. The
optimal ML detection (10) would use the entire sequence
y =
_
y(0)
t
y(k)
t

t
, but then this would be quite
complex and so we propose to use the suboptimal, reduced
complexity differential detection proposed in [7] for colocated
differential space-time codes. Assuming that the channel co-
efcients do not change for at least two cycles, the decoder
uses two successive received vectors for decoding. According
to the equivalent channel model in (14), in the kth cycle, the
optimum decision is to choose G
j
( for
j = arg min
i={1, ,L}
|y(k) G
i
y(k 1)|
2
,
= arg max
i{1, ,L}
'
_
y

(k)G
i
y(k 1)
_
. (15)
4) Full diversity criteria: Here, we interpret Theorem 1 in
the context of differential encoded distributed ST coding. Let
y =
_
y(k 1)
t
y(k)
t

t
denote the concatenated received
vector over two consecutive transmission cycles. It then fol-
lows that
y =

C
i
h + n where

C
i
=
_
X(k 1)
G
i
X(k 1)
_
(16)
ISIT 2006, Seattle, USA, July 9 - 14, 2006
549
for some G
i
( and X(k 1) T. Notice that any such

C
i
satises

C
i
=

R
ii
= 2I
R
and

C
i

i
=
_
I
R
G

i
G
i
I
R
_
. (17)
Now suppose

D is the collection of all

C
i
mentioned above,
then (16) can be viewed as an equivalent channel. Since

D satises the conditions in Theorem 1 and the differential

detection (15) turns out to be the optimal ML decoder (10) for

D, the code

D achieves full diversity if

I
R


C

C
j

C

C
i

is
nonzero for all i ,= j. But then, the relations (17) can be used
to show
I
R


C

C
j

C

C
i
=
1
2
(C
i
C
j
)

(C
i
C
j
)
and hence full diversity is achieved if the unitary matrices
C
i
,= C
j
T are such that the difference matrix C
i
C
j
has
full rank for any pair C
i
, C
j
. This implies that GG

has to
be invertible where G ,= G

are product of nite number of

matrices from (. If ( is a group then this condition reduces
to the condition that ( has to be xed-point-free group [11].
Example 2 (Example 1 Continued): In Example 1, the re-
lay matrices are chosen via the regular representation of
elements in the eld extension Q(
9
)/Q(
3
) [9]. The minimal
polynomial over Q(
3
) for the element
9
is f(x) = x
3

3
and the matrix A
2
is the companion matrix of f(x). Any
element in Q(
9
) is of the form s
0
+ s
1

9
+ s
2

2
9
, and the
map
: Q(
9
) GL
3
(Q(
3
))
s
0
+s
1

9
+s
2

2
9
s
0
A
1
+s
1
A
2
+s
1
A
3
embeds Q(
9
), and so (Q(
9
)) is a eld. Hence every
matrix of the form s
0
A
1
+s
1
A
2
+s
1
A
3
=
_
A
1
s A
2
s A
3
s

is invertible as long as s
i
Q(
3
).
Now, since ( = G) is a subset of (Q(
9
)), the difference
of any two matrices from ( is in (Q(
9
)) and so invertible.
Example 3 (Generalized PSK [10]): Let R = T = 2 and
let
( =
_
G
k
=
_
cos
k
sin
k
sin
k
cos
k
_
:
k
=
k
L
, 0 l < N
_
.
We choose s =
_
1 0

t
and the relay matrices to be
A
1
= I
2
and A
2
=
_
0 1
1 0
_
.
Notice that A
j
G
k
= G
k
A
j
for any j and k. It is straightfor-
ward to check that GG

is invertible for any G ,= G

that are
nite products of matrices from (. More illuminating proof for
this is to view them as subsets of the regular representation of
the complex eld C over real eld R, where every complex
number a +ib is embedded into GL
2
(R) via the map
(a +ib)
_
a b
b a
_
.
Under this map, the points on the unit circle map to the 2 2
orthogonal matrices and the PSK points cos
k
+i sin
k
map to
the set ( (C). Since (C) is isomorphic to C all matrices
inside (C) are invertible and since GG

(C), the claim

holds.
A feature of this code is that the decoding complexity
is independent of the code size L. From (15), the decoder
decodes to G
j
, where
j = arg max
i{1, ,L}
_
c
2
+d
2
cos(
i
)
for c = '(y

(k)A
1
y(k 1)), d = '(y

(k)A
2
y(k 1)) and
chosen such that c =

c
2
+d
2
cos , d =

c
2
+d
2
sin .
The minimization clearly occurs for the choice l =
L

|.
Since can be calculated directly from y(k) and y(k 1),
the decoding complexity is independent of the code size L.
In all the earlier examples, ( as well as the relay matrices
/ are subsets of a eld. This restricts ( (and also /) to have
commuting set of unitary matrices. This is not necessary for
our code construction because all we want is the commuting
property between any matrix in ( with any matrix in /. In
the following section we give constructions for both ( and
/ starting from a division algebra. Since a division algebra
is a noncommutative algebra, it generalizes all our previous
examples and removes the restriction mentioned above.
B. Commuting sets of matrices from division algebras
We refer the readers to [9] for a detailed treatment on
division algebra and space-time code constructions based on
division algebra representation. Here we briey introduce
these abstract objects and discuss a particular representation
that yields the commuting sets that we are interested in.
A division algebra D is a vector space over a eld F
which is also a ring whose multiplication is associative, not
necessarily commutative and every element d D has a
multiplicative inverse d
1
D satisfying dd
1
= d
1
d = 1,
where 1 denotes the multiplicative identity in D. Let n denote
the dimension of the vector space D over F, which is known
to be a perfect square [9].
For an arbitrary element d D, the map L
d
(x) = dx is
an F-linear algebra isomorphism from D to D. This denes a
one-one map from d to the set of all F-linear isomorphisms
of D which associates d D to L
d
GL(D). With a xed
F-basis of D every d can be associated with a nn invertible
matrix over F denoted as [L
d
]. We call this as the left regular
representation of D.
Similar to L
d
, one can dene a map R
d
corresponding to
the multiplication (from right) xd and every element d can
be associated with another n n invertible matrix with the
same F-basis that is used for representing L
d
. This is called
the right regular representation which is denoted as [R
d
]. The
most important fact about these two representations is that
these two commute. To be more precise, if L
a
and R
b
are the
left and right regular representations corresponding to a D
and b D, then
L
a
R
b
(x) = L
a
(xb) = axb = R
b
(ax) = R
b
L
a
(x),
ISIT 2006, Seattle, USA, July 9 - 14, 2006
550
which implies that the matrices [L
a
] and [R
b
] commute, i.e.,
[L
a
][R
b
] = [R
b
][L
a
] for all a, b D. Let L = [L
d
] [ d D
and = [R
d
] [ d D. Thus we have identied commuting
subsets of GL
n
(F), each of them isomorphic to the division
algebra D.
We choose ( as a subset of unitary matrices from L and
/ as a subset from . This ensures that any matrix from
( commutes with any matrix from /. Furthermore, since L
is a division algebra, the full diversity requirement is also
guaranteed. For identifying and choosing a set of unitary
matrices ( in a division algebra, we use the techniques in [15],
[16]. We emphasize that the representation we use is over the
center, while [15], [16] uses representation over a maximal
subeld.
Remark 1: If x Z(D) = y : yd = dy d D, then
[L
x
] = [R
x
]. As a consequence, if D is a commutative division
algebra (eld) then [L
d
] = [R
d
] for all d D which is the
case in our earlier examples.
Example 4 (Representation of Quaternion algebra [14]):
A generalized quaternion algebra
_
,
F
_
over F is a 4-
dimensional associative and noncommutative algebra with
basis e
0
= 1, e
1
, e
2
, e
3
such that e
2
1
= F, e
2
2
= F and
e
1
e
2
= e
3
= e
2
e
1
. The left regular matrix representation
L
a
for any a = a
0
e
0
+a
1
e
1
+a
2
e
2
+a
3
e
3

_
,
F
_
is given
by
[L
a
] =

a
0
a
1
a
2
a
3
a
1
a
0
a
3
a
2
a
2
a
3
a
0
a
1
a
3
a
2
a
1
a
0

a
i
F.
The elements and need to be properly chosen to ensure
that
_
,
F
_
is a division algebra. For F = Q(i), it can be
proved that = i and =
2+i
1+2i
guarantees this.
Now, let (

=
_
X
j
Y
k
: 0 j 7, k 0
_
for
X =

0 0 0
1 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 1 0

Y =

0 0 0
0 0 0
1 0 0 0
0 1 0 0

.
The choice of and ensures that X
j
Y
k
is a unitary matrix
for all j and k. Thus ( can be chosen as any arbitrary nite
subset of the innite set (

.
For the relay matrix set /, we use the right regular
representation
[R
b
] =

b
0
b
1
b
2
b
3
b
1
b
0
b
3
b
2
b
2
b
3
b
0
b
1
b
3
b
2
b
1
b
0

, b
i
Q(i).
Check that [L
a
][R
b
] = [R
b
][L
a
] for any a, b
_
,
F
_
. We
choose
A
1
=

1 0 0 0
0 1 0 0
0 0 1 0
0 0 0 1

A
2
=

0 0 0
1 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 1 0

A
3
=

0 0 0
0 0 0
1 0 0 0
0 1 0 0

A
4
=

0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
1 0 0 0

.
which can be obtained from [R
b
] for appropriate choice of b
i

Q(i). The choice of and ensures that the relay matrices
are also unitary. We can choose s =
_
1 0 0 0

t
, for which
the initial matrix is an identity matrix.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to thank F. Oggier for sending a copy
of [16]. This work was supported partly by the DRDO-IISc
Prog. Adv. Res. in Math. Engg. and partly by the CSIR, India,
through Research Grant (22(0365)/04/EMR-II) to B.S. Rajan.
REFERENCES
[1] A. Sendonaris, E. Erkip, and B. Aazhang, User cooperation diversity-
Part I: System description, IEEE Trans. Comm., vol. 51, pp. 1927-1938,
Nov 2003.
[2] A. Sendonaris, E. Erkip, and B. Aazhang, User cooperation diversity-
Part II: Implementation aspects and performance analysis, IEEE Trans.
Comm., vol. 51, pp. 1939-1948, Nov 2003.
[3] J.N. Laneman, G.W. Wornell, Distributed space-time-coded protocols
for exploiting cooperative diversity in wireless network, IEEE Trans.
on Inform. Theory., vol. 49, pp. 2415-2425, Oct 2003.
[4] Y. Jing, and B. Hassibi, Wireless Networks, Diversity and Space-Time
Codes, ITW 2004, San Antanio, Texas, pp. 463-468.
[5] Y. Jing, Space-time code design and its applications in
wireless networks, PhD Thesis, California Institute of Tech-
nology, 2004. Available at http://etd.caltech.edu/etd/
available/etd-09072004-204814/.
[6] A. Dogandzic, Chernoff bounds on pairwise error probabilities of
space-time codes, IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory, vol. 49, pp.1327-1336,
May 2003.
[7] B.L. Hughes, Differential Space-Time Modulation, IEEE Trans.
Inform. Theory, vol. 46, no. 7, pp. 25672578, Nov 2000.
[8] B.M. Hochwald, and W. Sweldens, Differential Unitary Space-Time
Modulation, IEEE Trans. Comm, vol. 48, pp. 20412052, Dec 2000.
[9] B. A. Sethuraman, B. S. Rajan, and V. Shashidhar, Full-diversity, high-
rate space-time block codes from division algebras, IEEE Trans. Inform.
Theory, vol. 49, no. 10, pp. 25962616, Oct 2003.
[10] V. Tarokh, and II-Min Kim, Existence and Construction of Noncoherent
Unitary Space-Time Codes, IEEE Trans. Inform. Theory, vol. 48, no.
12, pp. 31123117, Dec 2002.
[11] A. Shokrollahi, B. Hassibi, and B.M. Hochwald, Representation Theory
for High-Rate Multiple-Antenna Code Design, IEEE Trans. Inform.
Theory, vol. 47, no. 6, pp. 23352367, Sep 2001.
[12] S. Yiu, R. Schober, and L. Lampe, Differential Distributed Space-Time
Block Coding, IEEE PacRim Conf, Victoria, Aug 2005.
[13] Kiran T., and B.S. Rajan, Distributed Space-Time Codes with Reduced
Decoding Complexity, submitted to ISIT 2006.
[14] Kiran T., and B.S. Rajan, High-rate Full-rank Space-Time Block Codes
from Cayley Algebra, Intl Conf on Signal Proc and Comm (SPCOM
2004), Dec. 2004, IISc Bangalore. Available at http://ece.iisc.
ernet.in/

bsrajan/Publications.html
[15] F. Oggier, and E. Lequeu, Families of unitary matrices achieving full
diversity, IEEE ISIT 2005, pp. 1173-1177.
[16] F. Oggier, First applications of cyclic algebras to noncoherent MIMO
channels, Allerton 2005.
[17] Kiran T., and B. Sundar Rajan, Partially-coherent distributed space-
time codes with differential encoder and decoder, Preprint.
ISIT 2006, Seattle, USA, July 9 - 14, 2006
551