Advertisement

Wireless Personal Communications

, Volume 100, Issue 3, pp 895–906 | Cite as

Variational Bayes Based Multiuser Detection for On–Off Random Access Channels

  • Rituraj Singh Jodha
  • Priyadip Ray
Article
  • 61 Downloads

Abstract

This paper considers on–off random access channels where the users transmit either a one or a zero to a base station or fusion center, and it is assumed that only a small fraction of users are active during any channel use. Under these assumptions, the problem of identifying the active users reduces to that of recovering a sparse binary vector from noisy random linear measurements. A hierarchical Bayesian approach is proposed in this paper to recover the set of active users. A fast approximate Bayesian inference based on Variational Bayes (VB) is then developed. Extensive simulation results are then provided to compare the performance of the proposed VB based Bayesian MUD approach to sparse estimation techniques such as OMP and LASSO. It is observed that the proposed approach is robust to variations in noise as well as sparsity levels. Further, for a given BER performance, the proposed approach requires substantially smaller dimensional codes as compared to OMP and LASSO, thus improving the spectral efficiency.

Keywords

Multiuser detection On–off random access channels Sparse signal processing Variational Bayes 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported in part by SRIC, IIT Kharagpur under Award IIT/SRIC/GSSST/MUA/2013-14/110.

References

  1. 1.
    Aldosari, S. A., & Moura, J. M. F. (2004). Fusion in sensor networks with communication constraints. In Proceedings of the 3rd international symposium on Information processing in sensor networks, IPSN’04 (pp. 108–115). ACM, New York.  https://doi.org/10.1145/984622.984638.
  2. 2.
    Applebaum, L., Bajwa, W. U., Duarte, M. F., & Calderbank, R. (2010). Multiuser detection in asynchronous on–off random access channels using lasso. In 48th annual Allerton conference on communication, control, and computing. Monticello, IL.  https://doi.org/10.1109/ALLERTON.2010.5706898.
  3. 3.
    Candes, E. J., & Tao, T. (2006). Near-optimal signal recovery from random projections: Universal encoding strategies? IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 52(12), 5406–5425.  https://doi.org/10.1109/TIT.2006.885507.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Donoho, D. L. (2006). Compressed sensing. IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 52, 1289–1306.MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fletcher, A., Rangan, S., & Goyal, V. (2009). A sparsity detection framework for on-off random access channels. In IEEE international symposium on information theory (pp. 169–173).  https://doi.org/10.1109/ISIT.2009.5205769.
  6. 6.
    Fletcher, A.K., Rangan, S., & Goyal, V.K. (2009). On–off random access channels: A compressed sensing framework. CoRR arXiv:0903.1022.
  7. 7.
    Griffiths, T. L., & Ghahramani, Z. (2006). Infinite latent feature models and the Indian buffet process. In Y. Weiss, B. Schölkopf & J. C. Platt (Eds.), Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 18 (pp. 475–482). MIT Press. http://papers.nips.cc/paper/2882-infinite-latent-feature-models-and-the-indian-buffet-process.pdf.
  8. 8.
    Lupas, R., & Verdu, S. (1990). Near-far resistance of multiuser detectors in asynchronous channels. IEEE Transactions on Communications, 38(4), 496–508.  https://doi.org/10.1109/26.52661.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Paisley, J., & Carin, L. (2009). Nonparametric factor analysis with beta process priors. In Proceedings of the 26th international conference on machine learning (pp. 777–784).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pati, Y., Rezaiifar, R., & Krishnaprasad, P. (1993). Orthogonal matching pursuit: recursive function approximation with applications to wavelet decomposition. In The 27th Asilomar conference on signals, systems and computers, 1993 (Vol. 1, pp. 40–44).  https://doi.org/10.1109/ACSSC.1993.342465.
  11. 11.
    Ray, P., & Varshney, P. (2011). False discovery rate based sensor decision rules for the network-wide distributed detection problem. IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, 47(3), 1785–1799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Seeger, M., & Wipf, D. P. (2010). Variational bayesian inference techniques. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, 27(6), 81–91.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Thibaux, R., & Jordan, M. I. (2007) Hierarchical beta processes and the Indian buffet process. In Proceedings of the 11th conference on artificial intelligence and statistic.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tibshirani, R. (1994). Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 58, 267–288.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tzikas, D. G., Likas, C., & Galatsanos, N. P. (2008). The variational approximation for bayesian inference. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, 25(6), 131–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Verdu, S. (1998). Multiuser Detection (1st ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Walsh, B. (2004). Markov chain monte carlo and gibbs sampling. In Lecture Notes for EEB 581, version 26, April.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zhu, H., & Giannakis, G. B. (2011). Exploiting sparse user activity in multiuser detection. IEEE Transactions on Communications, 59(2), 454–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.TATA Communications Ltd.PuneIndia
  2. 2.G. S. Sanyal School of TelecommunicationsIndian Institute of Technology, KharagpurKharagpurIndia

Personalised recommendations