158

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 55, NO. 1, JANUARY 2006

Closed-Form Expressions of Approximate Error

Rates for Optimum Combining With Multiple
Interferers in a Rayleigh Fading Channel
Jin Sam Kwak, Member, IEEE, and Jae Hong Lee, Senior Member, IEEE

AbstractThis paper presents approximate error rates of M ary phase shift keying (MPSK) for optimum combining (OC) with
multiple cochannel interferers in a flat Rayleigh fading channel.
For the first-order approximation, we derive the closed-form expression for ordered mean eigenvalues of the interference-plusnoise covariance matrix, which facilitates performance evaluation
for the OC with arbitrary numbers of interferers and antenna elements without Monte Carlo simulation and multiple numerical
integrals. We also derive the closed-form expressions for approximate error rates of MPSK for the OC in terms of the average
error rate of MPSK for maximal ratio combining (MRC). From
the simple evaluation of ordered mean eigenvalues, we show that
the first-order approximation gives a simple and accurate way to
analyze the performance of the OC.
Index TermsAdaptive antennas, co-channel interference,
M -ary phase shift keying (MPSK), optimum combining (OC).

I. INTRODUCTION
DAPTIVE antenna arrays significantly improve both the
performance and capacity of wireless communication systems by mitigating multipath fading and suppressing interfering signals [1]. The optimum combiner (OC) which maximizes
the signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio (SINR) yields better performance than that of maximal ratio combiner (MRC)
in the interference-limited system. In the absence of interference for an additive noise environment, the OC maximizes the
signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and has the same performance as
the MRC [1], [2].
In a Rayleigh fading environment, the exact average bit error
rate (BER) performance of the OC for binary phase-shift-keying
(BPSK) has been studied [2][4]. The closed-form expression
for the average BER was derived for the OC in the presence of
the arbitrary number of interferes [4]. For M -ary phase-shiftkeying (MPSK), the average symbol error rate (SER) have been
expressed as a multidimensional integral that can be a burden to
be evaluated numerically [5] or as a simple closed-form upper
bound that may be loose for high SER [6].
On the other hand, approximation techniques have been studied to simply evaluate the performance analysis of the OC

Manuscript received April 16, 2003; revised December 23, 2004. This work
was supported in part by the Brain Korea 21 Project and in part by the IT
scholarship program from MIC and IITA, Korea. The review of this paper was
coordinated by Prof. H. Leib.
J. S. Kwak is with the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, the University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712-0240 USA
(e-mail: samji@ece.utexas.edu).
J. H. Lee is with School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science,
Seoul National University, Seoul 151-742 Korea (e-mail: jhlee@snu.ac.kr).
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TVT.2005.861184

[7][10]. Villier proposed orthogonal approximation to determine the average BER of several binary modulation schemes [7].
However, the orthogonal approximation only takes into account
the case where the number of antenna elements is larger than
that of interferers, and the accuracy of approximation depends
on the difference between the number of interferers and the
number of antenna elements [7]. In [8], Pham and Balmain
proposed a first-order approximation and derived a closed-form
expression of average BER for BPSK with an arbitrary number of interferers. This approximation provides accurate results
for the performance of the OC, whereas Monte Carlo simulation is needed to evaluate the ordered mean eigenvalues of
the interference-plus-noise covariance matrix [8]. Recently, the
analytical expressions for the ordered mean eigenvalues have
been presented as the multidimensional integral, which can be
derived as a closed-form solution in the simple cases such as
dual-antenna reception or two cochannel interferers [9], [10].
In this paper, we derive the simple closed-form expression of
the ordered mean eigenvalues to avoid Monte Carlo simulation
and multiple numerical integrals in the presence of arbitrary
numbers of interferers and antenna elements. As the extended
results of the performance analysis in [7] and [8], the approximate average SERs of MPSK for the OC are also derived in
terms of the average SER of MPSK for the MRC. The analytical results of the approximation using ordered mean eigenvalues
provide a simple and accurate way to assess the performance of
the OC with multiple cochannel interferers.
The paper is organized as follows. Section II gives the system
model. In Section III, we derive the approximate error probabilities of MPSK for the OC and the closed-form expression for
ordered mean eigenvalues in the presence of arbitrary numbers
of interferers. Section IV presents the numerical results, and
Section V concludes the paper.
II. SYSTEM MODEL
Consider an N -element antenna array and L cochannel interferers. The N -dimensional received signal vector is given
by
r(t) =

L




PD uD sD (t) +
Pk uk sk (t) + n

(1)

k =1

where sD (t) and sk (t) are the desired and the kth interfering signals using MPSK modulation with E[s2D (t)] = E[s2k (t)] = 1,
respectively. uD and uk are the N 1 propagation vectors
with each component having unit mean power. n is the N 1

0018-9545/$20.00 2006 IEEE

KWAK AND LEE: CLOSED-FORM EXPRESSIONS OF APPROXIMATE ERROR RATES FOR OC

additive noise vector with mean power 2 on each antenna element. The propagation vectors and noise vector are assumed to
be mutually independent zero-mean complex Gaussian vectors.
PD and Pk are the mean powers of the desired user and the kth
interferer, respectively.
Conditioned on the vectors uk , the N N covariance matrix
of the received interference-plus-noise can be written as
R=

L


Pk uk uTk + 2 I

(2)

159

i , i = 1, 2, . . . , m can be expressed as
f () = A0

n m
i 2
i 2
PIm exp
PI
PI
i=1
m


m


(i j )2

(6)

j =i+1


1
where A0 = ( m
i=1 (n i)!(m i)!) .

k =1

where I is the N N identity matrix, and the symbols ( )

and ()T denote conjugate and transpose, respectively. Note that
R varies with the channel fading rate, which is assumed to
be much slower than the symbol rate. The optimum weighting
vector for the OC that maximizes the SINR at the array output
is w = R1 uD , where does not affect the output SINR as
an arbitrary constant [1]. Then, the maximum output SINR per
symbol is given by
s = PD uTD R1 uD .

i=1

i
i PD s

A. MGF-Based Approach
The average SER for the OC conditioned on is given by
[12], [13]
1
PsOC () =

(3)

Since R is a Hermitian matrix, R can be unitarily diagonalized as R = UT U , where U is a unitary matrix, and
= diag{1 , 2 , . . . , N } is a diagonal matrix of the ordered eigenvalues of R with 1 2 N . Letting
v = UuD = [vD ,1 vD ,2 vD ,N ]T , the output SINR s

2
can be expressed as s = PD N
i=1 vi /i , where vi = |vD ,i | .
Since v has the same statistical properties of uD by unitary transformation of U, vi follows a Chi-square distribution with two
degrees of freedom, i.e., fv i (x) = exp(x). Then, the moment
generating function (MGF) of s conditioned on the eigenvalues
i , i = 1, 2, . . . , N is given by [3][10]

N

 P D vi
OC
s (s; 1 , 2 , . . . , N ) = E exp
s
i
i=1
N


III. APPROXIMATE ERROR RATE OF MPSK FOR THE OC

(4)

Let m = min{N, L} and n = max{N, L}. Since the N m

smallest eigenvalues of R are equal to the noise power 2 ;
i.e., m +1 = m +2 = = N = 2 , the conditional MGF
becomes

N m 

m
2
i
OC
(s;
)
=
(5)
s
2 PD s
i PD s
i=1
where = [1 2 m ]T with 1 2 m 2 .
In order to derive the average SER of MPSK for the OC
with multiple cochannel interferers, it is required to evaluate
the exact joint distribution of eigenvalues in (5). However, it
is difficult to have insight into the performance analysis of
the OC with individual mean power Pk [6]. We assume that
multiple cochannel interferers haveequal average power PI ;
then, the N N random matrix PI Lk=1 uk uTk has the central
complex Wishart distribution [10], [11]. Consequently, the joint
probability density function (pdf) of the m distinct eigenvalues

/M

/M

 g
 

PSK
E exp 2 s  d
sin
 g

PSK
2 ; d
(7)
OC
s
sin

where gPSK = sin2 (/M ). Then, the exact average SER of

MPSK for the OC can be obtained by averaging (7) with (6) and
is given by
1
OC
Ps,exact
=

/M

 g

PSK
2 ; f ()(d)d
OC
s
sin
(8)

where D = { 2 m m 1 1 }. In general,
it is difficult to derive a closed-form expression for (8), and the
numerical integral, which usually requires excessive computational time for large values of m, is required to evaluate the
exact performance of MPSK for the OC [5].
To simplify the performance analysis of the OC, Pham and
Balmain proposed a first-order approximation by using a Taylor
series expansion [14, p. 156] in which each of m distinct eigenvalues is replaced by its mean value [8]. Then, the approximate
MGF of maximum output SINR can be expressed as
OC

OC
s ,app (s) = s (s; 1 , 2 , . . . , m )

(9)

q = E[q ], q = 1, 2, . . . , m. From the partial fraction

where
expansion in [15, (6.27.12)], the average SER of MPSK for the
OC can be expressed in terms of the average SER of MPSK for
the MRC, which has been studied in [12] and [13], and is given
by
OC
Pe,app
=

N
m
i=1

Bi PeMRC

m
PD
PD
MRC

P
,
i
+
C
,
1
j e
j
2

j =1
(10)

where PeMRC (, p) is the average SER of MPSK for the MRC

with the average received SNR per symbol per branch , and the
number of diversity branches p in the presence of no interfering

160

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 55, NO. 1, JANUARY 2006

signals [12], [13, p. 269]

where



d N m i
(1 PD s/ 2 )N m OC
lims 2 /P D ds
N m i
s ,app (s)
Bi =
(PD / 2 )N m i (N m i)!

H1 (x) = exp

Cj =

lim

j /P D
s



j )OC (s) .
(1 PD s/
s ,app

H2 (x) =
(12)

To analyze the error probability of MPSK for the OC in (10),

it is required to obtain the individual mean values of m distinct
eigenvalues. From the exact joint pdf in (6), the m distinct mean
eigenvalues can be expressed as [9], [10]
 


q f ()d1 dm 1 dm (13)
q =
2

q =

2 + PI

m


i=1

m
1


m


xl

a


m

j =i+1

xl

(18)

l=i

  ak ak
ak
g0 akj x1 1, j x2 2, j . . . xmm , j

a




g0 (akj )t x, akj

(19)

j =1

where akj = [ak1,j , ak2,j , . . . , akm ,j ]T is the jth column vector of

all possible ak distinct vectors for nonnegative integer aki,j ,
satisfying the conditions
m


aki,j = k

(20)

i0


aki,j i0

for i0 = 1, 2, . . . , k

(21)

and

xl fx (x) dx1 dx2 . . . dxm

m


xl

 m


l=i

 j 1


2

i=1

(14)

exp

 j 1


j =1

x
l

i=1

(17)

= xk (xk 1 + xk ) (x1 + x2 + + xk )

xl

where x = [x1 x2 xm ]T with 0 x1 , x2 , . . . , xm

, x
l = E[xl ], and the joint pdf fx (x) is given by

l=i

l=i

l=q

fx (x) = A0

i=1

i=1

(16)

In order to represent the joint pdf in (15) as a simple integrable

formula, we first define the function hk (x) for k m, i.e.,
 k

k


hk (x) =
xl

aki,j = 0 for i > k.

ak

m


k xk

n m

i=1 j =i+1

l=q

l=q

= + PI

m


fx (x) dx1 dx2 . . . dxm

 
m 

2
= + PI

H3 (x) =

for q = 1, 2, . . . , m. The closed-form solutions of (13) have

been presented in simple cases, such as m = 1 and 2 [9], [10].
In general, the m-dimensional integral is evaluated numerically,
and it requires more computational time than Monte Carlo simulation for large values of m. In this paper, we derive the closedform expression of (13) in order to simply evaluate the exact
ordered mean eigenvalues in the presence of arbitrary numbers
of interferers and antenna elements.

From the change of variables q = 2 + PI m
l=q xl , q =
q in (13) can be written as
1, 2, . . . , m,


m
m



and

Using the finite binomial series and a variable substitution, we

can derive the average SER of the MRC as a closed-form expression, which is given by [16, (16)]
B. Closed-Form Expression for Ordered Mean Eigenvalues

k =1

(11)
and

m


n m
xl

l=i

ak

In (19), t(x, akj ) = x1 1, j x2 2, j xmm , j , and the coefficient

g0 (akj ) of t(x, akj ) is given by
 1 k

2 ak1,j
k m
1
k
i=1 ai,j
g0 (aj ) =

ak1,j
ak2,j
akm ,j



k
k

l l1
i=1 ai,j
=
.
(23)
akl,j !
l=1
Letting t(x, Ak )=[t(x, ak1 )t(x, ak2 ) t(x, ak k )]T and g0 (Ak )
a
= [g0 (ak1 )g0 (ak2 ) g0 (ak k )]T , where Ak = [ak1 ak2 ak k ],
a
a
hk (x) can be expressed as

2
xl

l=i

= A0 H1 (x)H2 (x)H3 (x)

ak

(22)

(15)

hk (x) = g0 (Ak ), t(x, Ak )

(24)

KWAK AND LEE: CLOSED-FORM EXPRESSIONS OF APPROXIMATE ERROR RATES FOR OC

where ,  denotes the inner product operation. Then, H2 (x)

becomes

1 m 1
m 1
1
T
for dm
=
and dj = [dm
1,j , d2,j , , dm 1,j , 0]
i,j
l
ai,e m 1 , i = 1, 2, m 1.

Let us define

g1 (bnj m )

j =1

b nk ,m
j

(x, am
k )

(25)

k =1

T
where bnj m = [bn1,jm , bn2,jm , . . . , bn amm
is the jth column
,j ]
n ,m
vector of all possible b distinct vectors for nonnegative integer bni,jm , satisfying the condition
am

bni,jm

=nm

for 0

bni,jm

nm

(26)

i=1

and the coefficient

g1 (bnj m )



g1 bnj m =


am

l=1

is given by
l1

n m i=1 bni,jm
bnl,jm

(n m)!
=  am n m .
l=1 bl,j !

(27)

If we let Bn ,m = [bn1 m bn2 m bn nm

, m ] and g1 (Bn ,m ) =
b

T
[g1 (bn1 m )g1 (bn2 m ) . . . , g1 (bn nm
, m )] , then H2 (x) can be exb
pressed as
n ,m 

b
am

 n m  
m b nl , m
j
{g0 (al )}
g1 bj
t(x, cj )
H2 (x) =
j =1
n ,m
b

l=1


 

g1 bnj m t g0 (Am ), bnj m t(x, cj )

j =1

= g(Bn ,m , Am ), t(x, Cnm,m )

k =1
em 1 m 1
 


g0

j =1 l=1

em 1

gA

ale m 1
l,j

2
 

l
t x, ae m 1
l,j

2

1
em
t(x, dj )
j

(29)

j =1
1
1 m 1
m 1 T
where em
= [em
j
1,j e2,j em 1,j ] is the jth column vector of all possible em 1 distinct vectors for positive integer
1
em
i,j , satisfying the condition
1
1 em
ai
i,j

(31)



Dm 1 = d1 d2 . . . d em 1

(32)

and


T


 1 
1
1
gA (Em 1 ) = gA em
gA em
. . . gA em
m 1
1
2

1
where gA (em
)=
j
to

m 1
l=1

(33)
g0 (ale m 1 ); then, H3 (x) simplifies
l,j

H3 (x) = gA (Em 1 , ), t(x, Dm 1 )2 .

(34)

Substituting (28) and (34) into (15) yields the final expression
for fx (x1 , x2 , . . . , xm ) in (35), shown at the bottom of the next
1
1
)gA (em
)
page, where i,j,k = A0 g(bni m , Am )gA (em
j
k
i,j,k
i,j,k
T
and pi,j,k = [p1 , p2 , . . . , pi,j,k
]
=
c
+
d
+
d
.
With
i
j
k
m
the help of the identity [17, (3.351.3)], the ordered mean eigen q , q = 1, 2, . . . , m, can be expressed as (36), shown at
value
the bottom of the next page.
The closed-form solution in (36) gives a simple way to
evaluate the exact ordered mean eigenvalue in the presence of
arbitrary numbers of interferers and antenna elements without
the Monte Carlo simulation and multiple numerical integrals.
From the closed-form expression of ordered mean eigenvalues,
we can simply obtain the approximate average SER of MPSK
for the OC in (10). Appendix A shows that, as an example
for m = 3 and n = 5, the coefficient i,j,k and column vector
pi,j,k in (36) can be explicitly computed, and some results of
the ordered mean eigenvalues are given for different numbers
of interferers and antenna elements.

(28)

where g(Bn ,m , Am ) = g1 (Bn ,m ), t(g0 (Am ), Bn ,m ) and cj

is the jth column vector of Cnm,m = Am Bn ,m .
Next, H3 (x) can be written as
m 1
2

hk (x)
H3 (x) =

l=1


1 m 1
1
Em 1 = em
e2 . . . em
m 1
1

j =1
am

m 1

l,j

H2 (x) = {hm (x)}n m

m
n m
a

m
=
g0 (am
j )t(x, aj )
n ,m
b

161

for i = 1, 2, . . . , m 1

(30)

IV. NUMERICAL RESULTS

In this section, we present some numerical results to illustrate
the performance of the OC using first-order approximation
by comparing with the results of orthogonal approximation in
Appendix B, the upper bound in [10], and the Monte Carlo
simulation. The performance of the MRC is also evaluated by
using the exact average SER in [16, (16)] to present the effects of
optimum combining on average SER in the presence of multiple
cochannel interferers. For plotting the performance of the M -ary
signal, the average SINR per bit and the average INR per bit are
defined as S,b = S / log2 M , and I ,b = I / log2 M , respectively, where I = PI / 2 is the average interference-to-noise
ratio (INR) per symbol and S = D /(1 + LI ) is the average
SINR per symbol with average SNR per symbol D = PD / 2 .
Fig. 1 shows the average SER of MPSK versus average SINR
per bit for several values of M with N = 3, L = 2, and I ,b = 0
dB. It is shown that the use of the OC considerably improves
the system performance of MPSK, as shown for binary PSK
in [1]. As compared with the average SERs using orthogonal

162

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 55, NO. 1, JANUARY 2006

Fig. 1. Average SER of MPSK versus average SINR per bit for several values
of M with N = 3, L = 2, and I , b = 0 dB.

Fig. 2. Average SER of MPSK versus average SINR per bit for several values
of M with N = 3, L = 5, and I , b = 0 dB.

approximation and upper bound in [10], the average SER using

first-order approximation agrees with simulation results. Thus,
from the simple evaluation of the individual mean eigenvalues
in (36), the first-order approximation is an efficient technique to
evaluate the performance of the OC. Note that the performance
of the upper bound is close to that of orthogonal approximation as shown in [10]. However, since the upper bound in [10]
requires to evaluate the numerical integrals, the orthogonal approximation is more proper than the upper bound in [10] to
analyze the performance of the OC in the case of N > L.
Fig. 2 shows the average SER of MPSK versus average
SINR per bit for several values of M with N = 3, L = 5, and
I ,b = 0 dB. In Fig. 2, the average SER using the orthogonal

approximation is equal to the average SER of the MRC as shown

in Appendix B. There is a good agreement between the average SER using first-order approximation, and the simulation
results in the case of N < L. It is shown that the performance
of upper bound is close to the performance of the MRC, so that
the upper bound cannot reflect the effect of the OC when the
degrees-of-freedom (DOFs) are insufficient to suppress all interferers. From this, the upper bound is also limited to the case of
N > L.
Fig. 3 shows the average SER of MPSK for the OC versus
average SINR per bit for several values of N with M = 4, L =
2, and I ,b = 0 dB. It is shown that the agreement between the
average SER of the orthogonal approximation and simulation


fx (x1 , x2 , . . . , xm ) = A0 exp

m


k xk


g(B,n ,m Am ), t (x, Cnm,m ) gA (Em 1 , ), t(x, Dm 1 )2

k =1


= A0 exp

 n , m m 1 m 1
b
e
e




 1 
 1 

gA em
T (x, ci + dj + dk )
k xk
g bni m , Am gA em
j
k

m


i=1 j =1 k =1

k =1
n m
b

m 

r =q

i,j,k

j =1 k =1

0
n m

= 2 + PI

em 1

  
i=1

q = 2 + PI

em 1

= + PI

i=1 j =1 k =1

(35)

xl fx (x1 , x2 , . . . , xm ) dx1 dx2 dxm

m 1 m 1

 

exp(l xl )

e
m 
b
e

 

n m m 1 m 1
b
e
e


pi , j , k
xl l

l=1

i,j,k

r =q i=1 j =1 k =1

m



i,j,k


m


exp(l xl )

l=1,l =r 0
m
m 

pi,j,k
!
l
i,j,k

r =q l=1

lp l

+1

pi,j,k + 1
r
r

pi , j , k
xl l


dxl

p ir , j , k

exp(l xr ) xr

+1

dxl


(36)

KWAK AND LEE: CLOSED-FORM EXPRESSIONS OF APPROXIMATE ERROR RATES FOR OC

Fig. 3. Average SER of MPSK for OC versus average SINR per bit for several
values of N with M = 4, L = 2, and I , b = 0 dB.

163

Fig. 5. Diversity gain of OC over MRC versus the number of antenna elements
N to achieve 0.1% average SER. M = 4, L = 3, and I , b = 3 dB.

average SER for the OC, compared with orthogonal approximation and upper bound in [10].
Fig. 5 shows the diversity gain of the OC versus the number
of antenna elements N with M = 4, L = 3, and I ,b = 3 dB.
The diversity gain is defined as the difference in the required
SINR per bit to achieve a 0.1% average SER between the OC
and the MRC. It is shown that the gain for the first-order approximation is very close to the gain for the exact analysis. It
is also shown that the discrepancy of the diversity gain between
the orthogonal approximation (or upper bound in [10]), and exact analysis is less than 0.8 dB for large numbers of antenna
elements N 5.
V. CONCLUSION

Fig. 4. Average SER of MPSK versus average SINR per bit for several values
of I , b with M = 4, N = 4, and L = 2.

results improves greatly as N L increases. This is consistent

with the results in [7] for binary PSK, and the upper bound in [10]
also has the same tendency of the orthogonal approximation.
Fig. 4 shows the average SER of MPSK versus average SINR
per bit for several values of I ,b with M = 4, N = 4, and L = 2.
It is shown that the performance of the OC improves as the
average INR per bit increases. This is because the OC can more
easily cancel out the effect of the strong interference than that
of weak interference [1].
Table I shows the average SERs of MPSK using various analytical approaches for the OC and the MRC with M = 4, N = 3,
and I ,b = 0 dB. The exact error probabilities are evaluated
from the numerical integration of (8) in order to investigate the
accuracy of the approximate error probabilities in the OC. It is
shown that the first-order approximation provides the accurate

In this paper, we investigated the performance of MPSK for

the OC with an arbitrary number of interferers in a flat Rayleigh
fading channel. We derived the closed-form expression for the
ordered mean eigenvalues for the first-order approximation to
avoid Monte Carlo simulation and multiple numerical integrals.
The approximate average SER of MPSK for the OC was also
derived by using the first-order approximation and orthogonal
approximation in terms of the average SER of the MRC. The
accuracy of the approximations was evaluated by comparing
with the results of the upper bound in [10] and simulation. From
the numerical examples, we showed that the first-order approximation is an efficient technique to assess the performance of the
OC, and the simple closed-form expression for the ordered mean
eigenvalues provides a simple and accurate approximation for
the performance analysis of MPSK for the OC in the presence
of the arbitrary numbers of interferers and antenna elements.
APPENDIX A
EVALUATION OF ORDERED MEAN EIGENVALUES IN (36)
This Appendix shows that the ordered mean eigenvalues can
be evaluated simply from (36) for arbitrary values of m and n.

164

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 55, NO. 1, JANUARY 2006

TABLE I
SYMBOL ERROR RATES USING VARIOUS ANALYTICAL METHODS FOR OC AND MRC WITH M = 4, N = 3, AND I , b = 0 dB

In the case of m = 3 and n = 5, e.g., A1 , A2 , and A3 with

a1 = 1, a2 = 2, and a3 = 5 satisfying the conditions (20)(22)
can be obtained as

1
1 0
A1 = 0 , A2 = 1 2 ,
0
0 0

0 0 1 0 1
A3 = 0 1 0 2 1
3 2 2 1 1

The coefficient column vector gA (E2 ) in (33) is expressed as

 T
 
 
gA (E2 ) = gA e21 gA e22 gA e2 e2
= [1

(43)

and

Since i,j,k and pi,j,k in (35) is easily obtained by

g(B5,3 , A3 ), gA (E2 ), C5,3
3 , and D2 , the ordered mean eigenvalues can be exactly evaluated as

(37)

respectively. The coefficient column vectors g0 (Ak ) for k =

1, 2, 3 are easily calculated as g0 (A1 ) = 1, g0 (A2 ) = [1 1]T ,
and g0 (A3 ) = [1 2 1 1 1]T . From the condition in (26), B5,3
with b5,3 = 15 is given in (38) at the bottom of the page. The
coefficient column vector g1 (B5,3 ) is also given in (39) at the
bottom of the page. Then, for H2 (x) in (28), we obtain (40) and
(41), shown at the bottom of the next page. For H3 (x) in (34),
E2 and D2 in (31) and (32) are given by
"

1 1
E2 =
1 2

"

and

2
D2 =
1

B5,3

2
0

= 0

0
0

1
2

0
0

0
2
0
0
0

0
0
2
0
0

0
0
0
2
0

= [1

1
1
0
0
0

1
0
1
0
0

1
0
0
1
0

#
2885
PI .
2187

Using the similar approach for m = 3 and n = 5, Table II

shows some results for ordered mean eigenvalues in other cases
of m and n. From (36), the exact ordered mean eigenvalues can
be simply evaluated without multiple numerical integrals and
Monte Carlo simulation for arbitrary numbers of interferers and
antenna elements.

 
g1 b22
1

582065
139968

(44)

(42)

0
0
0
0
2

"
3 ] = 2 + 1332815

139968

1
[

#T

 
g1 (B5,3 ) = g1 b21

1]T .

1
0
0
0
1

0
1
1
0
0

0
1
0
1
0

0
1
0
0
1

0
0
1
1
0

0
0

0.

1
1

0
0
1
0
1

(38)


T
g1 b2 5, 3
b

2]T .

(39)

KWAK AND LEE: CLOSED-FORM EXPRESSIONS OF APPROXIMATE ERROR RATES FOR OC

165

TABLE II
q 2 )/P I , q = 1, 2, . . . , m FOR EXACT m DISTINCT MEAN EIGENVALUES
(

APPENDIX B
AVERAGE SER OF MPSK FOR THE OC USING
ORTHOGONAL APPROXIMATION
The first-order approximation can be used to evaluate the performance of the OC in the case of arbitrary N and L, while the
orthogonal approximation, which has been proposed by Villier,
can be used when the number of interferers is less than the
number of antenna elements, i.e., N > L [7]. The orthogonal
approximation is a simple method, wherein the L distinct random eigenvalues are replaced by a fixed = 2 + N PI . Then,
the MGF of maximum SINR for the orthogonal approximation
becomes
OC
OC
s ,OA (s) = s (s; 1 , 2 , . . . , L )| q =, q =1,2,...,L

N L

L
2

=
.
(45)
2 PD s
PD s


k /L due to
value of L distinct mean eigenvalues as = Lk=1
L
2
k =1 (k ) = LN PI [10]. As the extension of the results
from orthogonal approximation to the case of N L, can be
expressed as = 2 + nPI [10]. For N L, the approximate
MGF is given by

1
OC
(s)
=
=
s ,OA
PD s
1 S s
= MRC
(s; S , N ).
s

From (47), however, the performance of the OC using the orthogonal approximation is equal to the performance of the MRC
so that the orthogonal approximation cannot represent the effect
of interference rejection from the OC in case of N L. Thus,
the orthogonal approximation in [7] has been applied to the performance analysis of the OC when the number of interferers is
less than the number of antenna elements.

From a partial fraction expansion [18, (3.3)], the average SER

of MPSK for the OC using the orthogonal approximation can
be evaluated as
OC
Ps,OA
=

REFERENCES
[1] J. H. Winters, Optimum combining of signals in space-diversity reception, IEEE J. Select. Areas Commun., vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 528539, Jul.
1984.
[2] J. Cui, D. D. Falconer, and A. U. Sheikh, Performance evaluation of
optimum combining and maximal ratio combining in the presence of cochannel interference and channel correlation for wireless communication
systems, Mobile Netw. Appl., vol. 2, pp. 315324, 1997.
[3] V. A. Aalo and J. Zhang, Performance of antenna array systems with
optimum combining in a Rayleigh fading environment, IEEE Commun.
Lett., vol. 4, no. 12, pp. 387389, Dec. 2000.
[4] A. Shah, A. M. Haimovich, M. K. Simon, and M. Alouini, Exact biterror probability for optimum combining with a Rayleigh fading Gaussian
cochannel interferer, IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 48, no. 6, pp. 908912,
Jun. 2000.
[5] M. Chiani, M. Z. Win, A. Zanella, and J. H. Winters, Exact symbol
error probability for optimum combining in the presence of multiple cochannel interferes and thermal noise, Proc. IEEE GLOBECOM 2001,
pp. 11821186, San Antonio, TX, Nov. 2001.

L

(1 N I )L i N i 1 MRC
Ps
(d , i)
Li
(N I )N i
i=1
+

N
L

j =1

(1 N I )L
(N I )N j

N j1
L1

PsMRC (d , j)

(46)
d = d /(1 + N I ). From the results of the ordered
where
mean eigenvalues in Appendix A, the orthogonal approximation
uses the nonordered mean eigenvalue of R, which is the average
C5,3
3 = A3 B5,3

0 0 2
= 0 2 0
6 4 4

0
4
2

2
2
2

0
1
5

1
0
5

(47)

0
2
4

1
1
4

1
1
4

0
3
3

1
2
3

1
2
3

2
1
3

1
3
2

(40)

and
g(B5,3 , A3 ) = g1 (B5,3 ), t(g0 (A3 ), B5,3 )
= [1

2]T .

(41)

166

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 55, NO. 1, JANUARY 2006

[6] A. Shah and A. M. Haimovich, Performance analysis of optimum combining in wireless communications with Rayleigh fading and cochannel
interference, IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 46, no. 4, pp. 473479, Apr.
1998.
[7] E. Villier, Performance analysis of optimum combining with multiple
interferers in flat Rayleigh fading, IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 47, no. 10,
pp. 15031510, Oct. 1999.
[8] T. D. Pham and K. G. Balmain, Multipath performance of adaptive antennas with multiple interferers and correlated fadings, IEEE Trans. Veh.
Technol., vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 342352, Mar. 1999.
[9] J. S. Kwak and J. H. Lee, Performance analysis of optimum combining
for dual-antenna diversity with multiple interferers in a Rayleigh fading
channel, IEEE Commun. Lett., vol. 6, no. 12, pp. 541543, Dec. 2002.
[10] M. Chiani, M. Z. Win, A. Zanella, R. K. Mallik, and J. H. Winters, Bounds
and approximations for optimum combining of signals in the presence of
multiple cochannel interferers and thermal noise, IEEE Trans. Commun.,
vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 296307, Feb. 2003.
[11] A. T. James, Distribution of matrix variates and latent roots derived from
normal samples, Ann. Math. Statist., vol. 35, pp. 475501, 1964.
[12] A. Annamalai and C. Tellambura, Error rates for Nakagami-m fading
multichannel reception of binary and M -ary signals, IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 49, no. 1, pp. 5868, Jan. 2001.
[13] M. K. Simon and M.-S. Alouini, Digital Communication over Fading
Channels: A Unified Approach to Performance Analysis. New York:
Wiley, 2000.
[14] A. Papoulis, Probability, Random Variables, and Stochastic Processes.
New York: McGraw-Hill, 1991.
[15] D. Zwillinger, CRC Standard Mathematical Tables and Formulae. Boca
Raton, FL: CRC, 1996.
[16] J. S. Kwak and J. H. Lee, Approximate error probability of M -ary PSK
for optimum combining with arbitrary number of interferers in a Rayleigh
fading channel, IEICE Trans. Commun., vol. E86-B, pp. 35443550,
Dec. 2003.
[17] I. S. Gradshteyn and I. M. Ryzhik, Table of Integrals, Series, and Products.
New York: Academic, 2000.
[18] A. Cuyt, K. Driver, J. Tan, and B. Verdonk, A finite sum representation of
the Appell series f1 (a, b, b
; c; x, y), J. Comput. Appl. Math., vol. 105,
pp. 213219, 1999.

Jin Sam Kwak (S98M04) received the B.S., M.S.,

and Ph.D. degrees in electrical engineering and computer science from Seoul National University (SNU),
Seoul, Korea, in 1998, 2000, and 2004, respectively.
From October 2004 to September 2005, he was
a post-doctoral research associate with the School of
Electrical and Computer Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta. Currently he is with the
University of Texas at Austin as a post-doctoral research fellow with the Department of Electrical and
Computer Engineering. His research interests include
most areas of wireless communication systems, especially MIMO with interference, adaptive antennas, space-time coding, and multicarrier transmission.

Jae Hong Lee (M86SM03) received the B.S. and

M.S. degrees in electronics engineering from Seoul
National University (SNU), Seoul, Korea, in 1976
and 1978, respectively, and the Ph.D. degree in electrical engineering from the University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor, in 1986.
From 1978 to 1981 he was with the Department
of Electronics Engineering, Republic of Korea Naval
Academy, Jinhae, as an Instructor. In 1987, he joined
the faculty of SNU. He was a member of technical
staff at AT&T Bell Laboratories, Whippany, NJ, from
1991 to 1992. Currently, he is with SNU as a Professor in the School of Electrical Engineering. His current research interests include communication and
coding theory, space-time code, multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO), and
orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing (OFDM), and their application to
wireless communications.
Dr. Lee is a Vice President of the Institute of Electronics Engineers of Korea
and the Korea Society of Broadcasting Engineers, and a member of Tau Beta Pi.