REAL-TIME LUT-LESS MAGNITUDE MODULATION FOR PEAK POWER
CONTROL OF SINGLE CARRIER RRC FILTERED SIGNALS
Marco Gomes(1), Vitor Silva(1), Francisco Cercas(2,3) and Martin Tomlinson(4)
(1)
Instituto de Telecomunicações (IT), DEEC, University of Coimbra, Pólo II, 3030-290 Coimbra, Portugal
(2)
ISCTE, DCTI, Av. das Forças Armadas - 1600 Lisboa, Portugal
(3)
Instituto de Telecomunicações (IT), Av. Rovisco Pais 1, 1049-001 Lisboa, Portugal
(4)
Fixed and Mobile Communications Research, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, PL4 8AA, United Kingdom
ABSTRACT
In this paper a novel multistage polyphase magnitude
modulation (MPMM) scheme is proposed for efficiently
controlling the envelope’s peak power of single carrier band
limited signals, using root-raised cosine (RRC) pulse shaping.
A new LUT-less approach of the concept of magnitude
modulation (MM) is developed. As opposed to traditional MM
solutions, based on look-up-tables (LUT), in the present
proposal, the multiplier coefficients that magnitude modulate
the data stream prior to RRC filtering are computed in real time
by a low-complexity polyphase filter system. In addition, the
proposed technique is independent of the modulation being
used, making it possible to extend the MM concept to higher
order and/or non-constant amplitude constellations. Also, any
number of base-system blocks can be added in a serial cascade,
allowing to almost eliminate the back-off, even at very low
filter roll-off values. Increased sensitivity to noise due to MM is
compensated by using error control coding. Experimental
results show an overall back-off gain (back-off gain minus BER
loss) greater than 4.5dB and 3.6dB for 8-PSK and 16-QAM
respectively, considering 0.2 roll-off RRC filtering.
Index Terms—Magnitude Modulation; peak-to-average power
ratio (PAPR); back-off; multirate pulse-shaping filter; RRC
1. INTRODUCTION
Peak-to-average power ratio (PAPR) and spectral efficiency
have always been a key point in the design of many
communication systems. Although the peak power problem
seems to be less critical in single carrier modulations than in
orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM), it is also
true that the PAPR can be extremely high when single carrier
with a very low roll-off root-raised cosine filter (RRC) is used.
This problem is emphasized by the growing demand for higher
data rates in bandwidth limited channels (ex. satellite) that
require the use of higher order constellations and sharper RRC
filtering. As an example, in the recent satellite standard for
Digital Video Broadcasting (DVB-S2) [1], M-APSK constella-
tions were adopted [2] (with M = {16, 32} ) supported by a set of
spectrum shapes with roll-off factors of α = {0.2, 0.25, 0.35} .
This work has been partially supported by Fundação para a
Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT), under Grant SFRH/BD/38338/2007.
978-1-4244-3696-5/09/$25.00 © 2009 IEEE
Although the adopted M-APSK constellations present a low
PAPR of about 1dB and 2dB, for M = {16, 32} respectively,
RRC filtering with 20% roll-off contributes with an additional
5.9dB to the PAPR. Such high PAPR values impose high
linearity requirements on transmitter’s High Power Amplifiers
(HPA), which leads to high power consumption and, therefore,
low power efficiency and increased system cost.
Therefore, the problem of PAPR reduction in single carrier
systems reveals to be of major importance, although only a few
publications have considered it. Some of the proposed solutions
decrease the PAPR by optimizing the Nyquist pulse shape [3, 4].
More recently, coding solutions that avoid critical sequences of
modulated symbols were also proposed [5, 6].
A different approach consists in controlling the variation of
envelope signal at the RRC filter output, by adjusting the
amplitude, i.e. magnitude modulation (MM), of each data pulse
prior to RRC filtering, to suppress peaks in the transmitted
signal. This technique was firstly proposed in [7]. However, the
described adaptive peak suppression algorithm was too complex
and computationally intensive. A new MM scheme was
proposed with success for QPSK and OQPSK in [8, 9], with
gains of approximately 3 dB for 0.35 roll-off QPSK filtered
signals. The main novelty of that scheme was the fact that the
MM coefficients were previously computed and stored in a
look-up table (LUT), as in common baseband digital HPA’s
predistortion techniques [10]. However, that MM method [8, 9]
is difficult to extend to higher order M-ary constellations, due to
the existing high number of constellation symbols with
non-constant amplitude, which result in a huge number of
combinations to be considered. Recently, in [11, 12] the
symmetries of the constellation and RRC filter were explored, in
order to reduce the computation complexity of that LUT design,
as well as storage requirements. Using that strategy, the authors
have successfully extended the MM method to M = 16
(16-QAM and 16-QPSK). However, it became obvious that the
technique could hardly be applicable for higher order
constellations.
In this paper a LUT-less MM approach is proposed. The
new method, designated by Multistage Polyphase Magnitude
Modulation (MPMM), computes the MM coefficients in
real-time. A simple polyphase filter system predicts undesirable
peak excursions at the output of the RRC filter and adjusts it
accordingly to the amplitude of the symbols at the RRC input.
This MPMM method only depends on the RRC impulse
424
response. This has the inherent advantage of making the MPMM TABLE I. CONSTELLATION PAPR CONTRIBUTION
technique independent of the modulation being used. Therefore, M-PSK 16-APSK (a)
16-QAM 32-APSK(b) 32-QAM 64-QAM
it is now possible to extend the MM concept to higher order 0 dB 1.1 dB 2.6 dB 2.1 dB 2.3 dB 3.7 dB
and/or non-constant amplitude constellations. Furthermore, this
a. 16-APSK DVB-S2 constellation with γ = 3.15 [1]
PAPR reduction method performs equally well at very low roll-
off values. In addition, any number of base-system MPMM b. 32-APSK DVB-S2 constellation with γ 1 = 2.84 and γ 2 = 5.27 [1]
blocks can be added in a serial cascade, allowing to almost
TABLE II. PAPR OF AN RRC DIGITAL FILTER (DELAY=7, OVERSAMP.=16)
eliminate the need to use back-off from the HPA saturation
point. The increased sensitivity to noise resulting from Roll-off 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
magnitude modulation can be easily compensated by appropriate PAPR (dB) 6.45 5.93 5.15 4.53 4.07 3.64 3.41 3.40
error control coding.
This paper is organized as follows. Section 2 defines PAPR Discrete Time System

and back-off measures and presents the MM concept. Section 3 Magnitude Modulator
RRC filter
describes the new MPMM scheme. In section 4 the gains bits
Modul.
s[n]
z-D
m[n]s[n]
↑L H(z)
x[n] DAC
+
tx(t)
HPA
obtained with this technique for back-off reduction are reported, Magnitude Modulation
as well as the performance obtained for different constellations Factor Computation
Memory
m[n]
expressed by its bit error rate (BER). Finally, the main sn + D " s n " sn − D
conclusions are summarized.
Figure 2. Generic magnitude modulation transmitter system.
2. DEFINITIONS AND PROBLEM STATEMENT

Fig. 1 illustrates the functional diagram and the basic building

blocks of a typical digital communication transmitter system.
Figure 1. Generic system transmitter block diagram.
In order to limit the bandwidth of the transmitted signal
without inter-symbol interference (ISI), the modulated signal
s[n] is usually filtered by a linear phase RRC filter, H ( z ) . The
equivalent complex baseband signal to be transmitted x(t ) , fed
at the HPA input, is given by,
⎡ ⎤
x(t ) = s (t ) ∗ hrrc (t ) = ⎢∑ s (nTsymb )δ (t − nTsymb ) ⎥ ∗ hrrc (t ) , (1)
⎣ n
I Q
where s( nTsymb ) = s (nTsymb ) + js (nTsymb ) is the transmitted
symbol at interval nTsymb , Tsymb is the symbol duration time and
hrrc (t ) is the equivalent continuous-time impulse response of
RRC filter. Its PAPR is defined as
⎣
2
BackOff = 10log10 max x(t ) ( 2
A2 . ) (3)
So, we conclude that the undesirable contribution to PAPR
comes from RRC filtering. Sharper limitation in the frequency
domain results in higher amplitude variations in the time domain
and, therefore, high values of PAPRrrc . For roll-off values in the
range of interest, α ∈ [0.15; 0.35] , PAPRrrc can be much higher
than PAPRconst , as shown in Table II.
The Magnitude Modulation Principle
The main purpose of this work is to cancel the PAPRrrc
contribution using the MM principle [8, 9, 11, 12]. The idea is to
adjust the amplitude (magnitude modulation) of each data pulse
prior to RRC filtering, taking into account past and future
symbols in its neighborhood, in an effort to suppress peaks at
the transmitted signal, i. e., to guarantee that x(t ) ≤ A . The
generic scheme of a MM system is shown in Fig. 2, where the
⎦ D past and future symbol neighbors of sn are considered in the
choice of the best MM coefficient to apply to sn . The delay
DTsymb introduced by the MM technique is usually small and it
is chosen according to the time duration where the RRC impulse
response sustains significant non-zero amplitude values. The
equivalent complex baseband signal, after filtering and D/A

⎦ (
PAPR = 10log10 ⎡⎢ max x(t ) E x(t ) ⎤⎥ (dB) ,
2
) (2)
resulting from two main components: PAPRconst and PAPRrrc ,
due to the constellation and the RRC filter, respectively.
The PAPRconst contribution depends on the constellation
geometry and is null for constant amplitude constellations, such
as M-PSK. However, for higher order modulations, it
contributes with a non-negligible value to the total PAPR. In
Table I, PAPR values for several constellations are shown,
considering unitary average energy per transmitted symbol.
In all cases, it is assumed that the linear range of the HPA is
able to handle with the PAPRconst , i.e., maximum amplitude
symbols at the output of modulator (Fig. 1) will suffer no
distortion if they are directly fed at the HPA input. So, denoting
the maximum amplitude of a modulated symbol by A , the
back-off (in dB) to be applied to the signal x(t ) , prior to high
power amplification, is defined as:
conversion is then given by:
⎡ ⎤
x(t ) = ⎢ ∑ m I (nTsymb ) s I (nTsymb )δ (t − nTsymb ) ⎥ ∗ hrrc (t )
⎣ n ⎦
(4)
⎡ ⎤
+ j ⎢ ∑ mQ ( nTsymb ) s Q (nTsymb )δ (t − nTsymb ) ⎥ ∗ hrrc (t ) ,
⎣ n ⎦
where m I (nTsymb ) and mQ (nTsymb ) are the multiplier coefficients
that modulate the amplitude of the transmitted pulse
components, s I (nTsymb ) and s Q (nTsymb ) , at nTsymb intervals. In
order to avoid phase modulation, the magnitude modulation
factors m I and mQ are usually forced to be equal (we will
restrict ourselves to this case).
In the following section we present a system that computes
the MM factor to be applied to each symbol in real-time. We
will only focus on the discrete-time part of the system, assuming
ideal DAC operation. Equations (1) to (4) can be easily

425
translated to the discrete-time domain having in mind that the
main objective is to guarantee x[n] ≤ A .
Since the system is multi-rate, a better understanding of its
behaviour is obtained considering the different operating rates at
its different parts. So, we denote Tsamp as the sampling period at
which the RRC filter operates, which is related to Tsymb
according to L = Tsymb Tsamp . In Fig. 1-2 the block ↑ L
represents an up-sampler [13] that inserts L − 1 zero-valued
samples, between each two consecutive samples of the input
sequence, s[n] .
3. POLIPHASE MAGNITUDE MODULATION
The polyphase decomposition of the RRC filter H ( z ) is behind
the idea of a LUT-less MM approach. Lets assume that the
impulse response of the RRC filter spreads over 2 N symbol
intervals, Tsymb , and is therefore given by,
2 NL −1
H ( z) = ∑ h[n]z
n =0
RRC filtering can thus be performed at symbol rate [13]
using the polyphase decomposition of Fig. 3(a), with
2 N −1 2 N −1
Ei ( z ) = ∑ e [ n] z
n=0
i
−n
= ∑ h[nL + i]z
n=0
At each instant, the output x[n] is given by one of the
polyphase filters’ output at instant n0 = ⎣⎢ n / L ⎦⎥ since
x[n] = y( n mod L ) ⎡⎣ ⎢⎣ n / L ⎥⎦ ⎤⎦ .
All the outputs yi [n0 ] , with i = 0," , L − 1 , depend on the same
set of inputs symbols s[k ] , with k = n0 − 2 N ," , n0 , since
2 N −1
yi [n] = ∑ e [k ]s[n − k ] .
i (8)
k =0
Given that the energy of the RRC impulse response h[n] is
concentrated around sample NL (we are assuming H ( z )
causal), each polyphase impulse response ei [n] has its energy
concentrated around sample N and, thus, according to (7) and
(8), s[n0 − N ] is the most relevant symbol to the RRC output
excursion x[n] during the interval [n0 L;(n0 + 1) L[ , i.e., in each of
the output values yi [n0 ] .
Based on this premise, we designed the system of Fig. 3(a)
that adjusts the amplitude of symbol s[n0 − N ] in order to
control the output excursion of all polyphase filters Ei ( z ) (with
i = 1,", L − 1 ) at sampling instant n0 , so as to guarantee
that yi [n0 ] ≤ A . The impulse responses of FIR filters G0 i ( z ) and
G1i ( z ) are obtained directly from ei [n] and are defined as
⎧e [ n ] , 0 ≤ n ≤ N
g0i [ n] = ⎨ i
⎩ 0 , otherwise
⎧e [ n + N + 1] , 0 ≤ n ≤ N − 2
g1i [ n ] = ⎨ i . (10)
⎩ 0 , otherwise
Therefore, we name the new proposed method by Polyphase
Magnitude Modulation (PMM).
For a better understanding and without loss of generality, we
will focus the following discussion on the study of the PMM
system to control the output peak power of only one polyphase
filter Ei ( z ) , which we detail in Fig. 3(b).
When magnitude modulation is used, (8) is written as
f ( )
f ( )
f ( )
s[n]
(a)
ai [n]
G0i(z)
z-N-1 Ei (z)
s[n-N-1]
bi [n] mi [n-N]
X G1i(z) f ( )
−n
. (5) mi [n-N-1]
(b)
z-1
Figure 3. Polyphase magnitude modulation scheme for controlling
excursion at the RRC filter output. (a) Global PMM system
followed by RRC filter block. (b) Detailed of PMM branch.
−n
. (6)
2 N −1
yi [n] = ∑ e [k ]m [n − k ]s[n − k ] ,
k =0
i i (11)
where mi [n] is the MM coefficients sequence.
(7) Basically, the system tries to anticipate the output of Ei ( z )
at each instant n0 and, accordingly, it computes the MM factor
mi [n0 − N ] to apply into s[n0 − N ] , the input sample that most
contributes to the output y[n0 ] . The PMM system introduces a
small delay of NTsymb in transmission. When computing
mi [n0 − N ] , coefficients mi [n0 − k ] , with k = N + 1,", 2 N are
already known (past symbols relative to s[n0 − N ] ), although
nothing is known about the MM values that will magnitude
modulate symbols s[n0 − q ] , with q = 0,", N − 1 (future
symbols relative to s[n0 − N ] ). In order to avoid excessive time
variation of the average power of the signal after pulse shaping,
we assume that future symbols should be MM as
mi [n0 − q ]  mi [n0 − N ], for q = 0,", N − 1 . (12)
Considering an equality condition in (12), a non-negative
f (⋅) function (see Appendix) is defined so as to guarantee (13).
The procedure just described computes the magnitude
modulation factor mi [n] that multiplies each symbol s[n] , in
order to limit the excursion at the output of a particular filter
Ei ( z ) . However, m[n] has to be unique and has to guarantee
that | yi [n] |≤ A at the output of all filters Ei ( z ) (with
, (9)
i = 0,", L − 1 ). The solution is to multiply each symbol s[n] by
the more restricted factor of the set {m0 [ n], m1[n],", mL −1[n]} ,
i.e., computing
m[n] = min(m0 [n], m1[n]," , mL −1[n]) (14)
Magnitute modulation factors accuracy improvement
In (13), equality in condition (12) is assumed to be true in
order to compute m[n0 − N ] . So, what happens if the next value
to be computed, m[n0 − N + 1] , differs from m[n0 − N ] ?
When m[n0 − N + 1] ≤ m[n0 − N ], the condition | yi [n0 ] |≤ A
still holds because we are applying a more restricted factor to
426
 2 N −1 N 2 N −1
yi [ n0 ] ≤ A ⇔ ∑ e [k ]m [n
k =0
i i 0 − k ]s[n0 − k ] ≤ A ⇔ mi [n0 − N ]∑ ei [k ]s[n0 − k ] +
k =0
∑
k = N +1
ei [k ]mi [n0 − k ]s[n0 − k ] ≤ A

N N −2
⇔ mi [n0 − N ] ∑ g 0i [k ]s[n0 − k ] + ∑ g1i [k ]mi [n0 − k − N − 1]s[n0 − k − N − 1] ≤ A ⇔ mi [n0 − N ]ai [n0 ] + bi [n0 ] ≤ A (13)

k =0

k =0
ai [ n0 ] according to Fig. 3( b ) bi [ n0 ] according to Fig. 3( b )

⇒ mi [n0 − N ] = f ( A, ai [n0 ], bi [n0 ])

the next symbol s[n0 + 1] . If m[n0 − N + 1] > m[n0 − N ] , the fac-
tor to apply to s[n0 + 1] that guarantees | yi [n0 + 1] |≤ A (for all i )
can be relaxed, but it will not guarantee anymore that
| yi [n0 ] |≤ A . Symbol s[n0 − N + 1] is more relevant to the output
yi [n0 + 1] than to yi [n0 ] , so there must be a compromise for
m[n0 − N + 1] that does not decrease yi [n0 + 1] too much (which
is undesirable) and still guarantees that restriction | yi [n0 ] |≤ A is
only slightly violated. A simple procedure to accomplish this
uses the following time variant filter:
m[n + 1] > m[ n] ⇒ m '[n + 1] = ( m[n + 1] + m[n]) / 2 . (15)
Multistage PMM
One of the major advantages of the proposed scheme, is the
fact that the system design depends only on the RRC impulse
response. There is no restriction on the input type signal which
makes this new proposed technique independent of the
constellation being used. The system adjusts the amplitude of
the input symbols independently of its type, which means that
this procedure can also be applied to a sequence that was already
processed by MM, in order to further adjust its symbols and to
achieve a better control of its output excursion. The back-off to
apply to an input signal can therefore become almost negligible
just 1-stage PMM. This reduction grows-up to the 60% − 70%
range when (15) is used, which shows the effectiveness of the
simple procedure proposed. In this case, the 1-stage PMM
system performs already very close to the LUT-based MM
method. Even better results can be obtained by performing a few
number of refinement steps, i.e., by using a serial cascade of the
PMM base-block. Considering a 2-stage MPMM we easily
outperform LUT-MM results, particularly for the more
demanding case of sharp-rolloff RRC filtering. Within just 3
steps, back-off was almost eliminated, with a reduction greater
than 90% , corresponding to a gain of 5.3dB for α = 0.2 .
Fig. 4 also shows that MPMM performs identically for the
different tested constellations. This behaviour was expectable,
since maximum excursion above the desired limit A , is only
due to outer-circle symbol combinations. Consequently, the
system behaviour should be the same in such cases, as verified.
This important fact demonstrates that this technique is
independent of the modulation being used, as previously
claimed.
Required Back−off when using α=0.2 RRC filtering
No Magnitude Modulation
6.5 LUT−Based MM with N=5
1−stage MPMM without (16)
6

5.5
1−stage MPMM considering (16)
2−stage MPMM considering (16)
by using a cascade of a few MPMM blocks similar to that 5
3−stage MPMM considering (16)
Required Back−off when using α=0.35 RRC filtering
represented in Fig. 3(a). 4.5 4.5

4 4
Back−off [dB]

42%

4. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
3.5 41% 41% 41% 3.5

3 3
Back−off [dB]

2.5 2.5
44% 45% 44% 44%
64% 64%

The new proposed multistage PMM (MPMM) scheme was

64% 64%
2 2

tested by simulation with different normalized constellations:

1.5 76% 76% 76% 1.5
70% 70% 70% 69%
83% 83% 83% 83%
1 1

8-PSK, 16-QAM, 16-APSK with γ = 3.15 [1] and 32-APSK 0.5

91% 91% 91% 91%
0.5
85% 87%
94%
85% 87%
94%
84%
87%
94%
87%
94%

with γ 1 = 2.84 and γ 2 = 5.27 [1]. Fig. 4 plots the back-off 0

8−PSK 16−APSK 16−QAM 32−APSK
0
8−PSK 16−APSK 16−QAM 32−APSK

needed to avoid HPA saturation, considering RRC filtering with Figure 4. Required back-off and relative reduction gain (%), for
α = 0.2 and α = 0.35 respectively, for the following system different constellations, considering different MM schemes with
configurations: (a) α = 0.2 and (b) α = 0.35 RRC filtering.
• No magnitude modulation; __
8−PSK ( ) and 16−QAM (− − −) BER Performance with 20% RRC Filtering
0

• LUT-based MM approach [11, 12] considering a

10
No Magnitude Modulation
LUT−Based MM with N=5
memory of 5 symbols, for the case of combined 10
−1
1−stage MPMM considering (16)
2−stage MPMM considering (16)

limiting and data magnitudes equal (using the improved

function proposed in [12] to avoid phase modulation);
−2
10

• MPMM without improved accuracy of MM factors 10

−3

through average operation (15);

−4

• MPMM with improved accuracy, considering different

10

number of stages. 10
−5

The back-off gain (back-off reduction) expressed as a 10

−6

percentage, relative to the non-magnitude modulated case, is 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5

shown on top of each column. The MPMM method proved to be

very efficient. Even without accuracy improvement on the MM Figure 5. BER performance of the real-time magnitude modulation
method for 8-PSK and 16-QAM, RRC filtered signal, with
factors using (15), a reduction of about 40% is obtained with α = 0.2 , using the LDPC Wimax802.16e code (1248, 832 ) .

427
 The performance of the proposed MPMM was also
evaluated in terms of BER on a AWGN channel, considering the
(1248, 832) Low Density Parity Check (LDPC) code defined for
the Wimax 802.16e standard [14], with α = 0.2 RRC filtering.
Fig. 5 plots the results obtained for 8-PSK and 16-QAM
constellations. It can be observed that a code rate 2 3 efficiently
compensates the noise increased sensitivity due to MM. Also of
great importance is the fact that a MM transmitted signal is less
prone to noise when using the MPMM method. In fact, the
2-stage MPMM configuration shows to perform similar to the
LUT-based approach, while providing a superior gain in back-
off reduction. In this case, the 8-PSK and 16-QAM systems
perform only 0.3dB and 1.3dB apart from the corresponding
non-MM system at BER = 2 × 10−6 , respectively. This reflects an
overall back-off gain (back-off gain minus BER loss) greater
than 4.5dB and 3.6dB , respectively.
5. CONCLUSIONS
This paper addressed the problem of improving power
efficiency in bandwidth single carrier systems when very low
roll-off RRC filters are used. The concept of Magnitude
Modulation, under the context of peak-power control, was
greatly improved, allowing the generalization of existing
efficient techniques to high order and/or non-constant amplitude
constellations, with increased bandwidth efficiency. Based on
the polyphase decomposition of the RRC filter, a new technique
that computes the magnitude modulation factors in real-time
was described. Besides its simplicity and independency from the
modulation used, the new base-system block here proposed can
be cascaded to improve performance, allowing a reduction in the
required back-off above 90% , with just 3-stages. The increased
sensitivity to noise was also compensated using a (1248, 832 )
Wimax LDPC code. The proposed scheme was tested with
different constellations and all its results show a significant
improvement in the system’s power efficiency.
APPENDIX
Given a, b ∈ ^ and A ∈ \ + , we want to find the maximum
value for m ∈ [0; 1] that satisfies
| m a + b |≤ A (A.16)
• Case | a + b |≤ A ,
m =1 (A.17)
• Case | a + b |> A , condition (A.16) is satisfied with
equality when:
| m a + b |= A ⇔ ( m a + b)(m a + b)∗ = A2
(A.18)
⇔| a |2 m 2 + 2Re {ab∗ } m+ | b |2 − A2 = 0
An \ + solution to the second degree equation in m exists if
| b |≤ A . Due to the asymmetrical partition of polyphase filter
Ei ( z ) in filters given by (9) and (10), this condition is always
verified in practice. Combining (A.17) and (A.18) we define a
non-negative given by:
428
⎧ 1 , | a + b |≤ A
⎪
f ( A, a, b) = ⎨ − Re{ab* } + Re{ab∗ }2 − | a |2 (| b |2 − A2 )
⎪ , | a + b |> A
⎩ | a |2
(A.19)
REFERENCES
[1] ETSI, "Digital Video Broadcasting (DVB); Second generation
framing structure, channel coding and modulation systems for
Broadcasting, Interactive Services, News Gathering and other
broadband satellite applications," EN 302 307 V1.1.1, March 2005.
[2] R. De Gaudenzi, et al., "Performance analysis of turbo-coded
APSK modulations over nonlinear satellite channels," IEEE Trans.
on Wireless Comm., vol. 5, pp. 2396-2407, 2006.
[3] P. S. Rha and S. Hsu, "Peak-to-average ratio (PAR) reduction
by pulse shaping using a new family of generalized raised cosine
filters," in IEEE 58th Vehicular Technology Conference
(VTC2003-Fall), Orlando, Florida, 2003, pp. 706-710.
[4] B. Chatelain and F. Gagnon, "Peak-to-average power ratio
and intersymbol interference reduction by Nyquist pulse
optimization," in IEEE 60th Vehicular Technology Conference
(VTC2004-Fall), Los Angeles, CA, 2004, pp. 954-958.
[5] C. Mei and O. M. Collins, "Trellis pruning for peak-to-
average power ratio reduction," in Proc. Intern. Symp. on
Information Theory (ISIT), Adelaide, 2005, pp. 1261-1265.
[6] M. Tanahashi and H. Ochiai, "A New Trellis Shaping
Approach for Pulse-Shaped PSK Signals with Almost Constant
Envelope," in IEEE Intern. Conference on Communications (ICC),
Glasgow, 2007, pp. 5598-5603.
[7] S. L. Miller and R. J. O'Dea, "Peak power and bandwidth
efficient linear modulation," IEEE Trans. on Commun., vol. 46, pp.
1639-1648, 1998.
[8] M. Tomlinson, et al., "Power and bandwidth efficient
modulation and coding for small satellite communication
terminals," in IEEE International Conference on Communications
(ICC), Anchorage, Alaska, 2002, pp. 2943-2946.
[9] A. Ambroze, et al., "Magnitude modulation for small satellite
Earth terminals using QPSK and OQPSK," in IEEE International
Conference on Communications (ICC), Anchorage, Alaska, 2003,
pp. 2099-2103.
[10] P. L. Gilabert, "Multi Look-Up Table Digital Predistortion for
RF Power Amplifier Linearization," PhD dissertation, Universitat
Politècnica de Catalunya, 2007.
[11] M. Gomes, et al., "Efficient M-QAM Transmission using
Compacted Magnitude Modulation Tables," in IEEE Global
Telecommunications Conference (GLOBECOM), New Orleans,
LA, 2008.
[12] M. Gomes, et al., "Low Back-off 16-APSK Transmission
Using Magnitude Modulation and Symbol Quantization," in
International Workshop on Satellite and Space Communications
(IWSSC), Toulouse, 2008.
[13] S. K. Mitra, Digital Signal Processing: A Computer-Based
Approach Third Edition: McGraw-Hill, 2006.
[14] IEEE, "Part 16: Air Interface for Fixed and Mobile Broadband
Wireless Access Systems - Amendment for Physical and Medium
Access Control Layers for Combined Fixed and Mobile Operation
in Licensed Bands," IEEE 802.16e, 2005.