in recent years , the goal of providing high speed wireless data services has generated a great amount of interest among the research community .
recent information theoretic results have demonstrated that the ability of a system to support a high link quality and higher data rates in the presence of rayleigh fading improves significantly with the use of multiple transmit and receive antennas  @xcite .
a very important aspect is always the availability of analytical expressions to describe the stochastic nature of the channel under consideration as given in  @xcite for the mimo channel .
this offers an opportunity to obtain , e.g. , closed - form analytical formulas for the ergodic capacity or the outage mutual information of such mimo channels .
e.g. , in  @xcite , the probability density function ( pdf ) of the random mutual information for independent identically distributed ( i.i.d . )
mimo channels was derived in the form of the inverse laplace transform and a gaussian approximation of the pdf was presented . in  @xcite ,
the impact of mimo channel rank deficiency and spatial fading correlation on the mutual information was analyzed .
furthermore , for correlated channels , the optimal transmit strategy and the impact of correlation on the outage probability were derived in  @xcite .
there has been considerable work on a variety of new codes and modulation signals , called space - time codes , in order to approach the huge capacity of such mimo channels .
the performance criteria of space - time codes were derived in  @xcite .
one scheme of particular interest is the alamouti scheme  @xcite for two transmit antennas .
later on ,  @xcite proposed more general schemes referred to as orthogonal space - time block codes ( ostbc ) with the same properties as the alamouti scheme like , e.g. , a remarkably simple maximum - likelihood decoding algorithm .
interestingly , the combination of ostbc with a mimo antenna system can be represented equivalently as a single - input - single - output ( siso ) system , where the channel gain is equal to the frobenius norm of the actual mimo channel .
the performance of orthogonal space - time block codes  @xcite with respect to mutual information was analyzed ( among others ) for the uncorrelated rayleigh fading case in  @xcite and for the more general case with different correlation scenarios and line of sight ( los ) components in  @xcite .
ostbc exploit multiple antennas at both the transmitter and receiver in order to obtain transmit and receive diversity and therefore increase the reliability of the system . with the knowledge of the stochastic nature of the resulting equivalent channel due to the employment of ostbc in a mimo system , the loss in mutual information of ostbc in subject to transmission rate , number of receive antennas and channel rank was quantified in  @xcite , whereas in  @xcite a comparison of ostbc with a system applying beam - forming was presented .
unfortunately , the alamouti space - time code for two transmit and one receive antennas is the only ostbc , which , to the best of our knowledge , achieves the maximum possible mutual information of a mimo system  @xcite , since we can not construct an ostbc with transmission rate equal one for more than two transmit antennas  @xcite .
therefore , @xcite designed a quasi - orthogonal space - time block code ( qstbc ) with transmission rate one for four and eight transmit antennas . by properly choosing the signal constellations as done in  @xcite ,
it is possible to improve the ber performance with ml - detection for the codes given in  @xcite .
the ber performance of qstbc with suboptimal detectors has been analyzed in  @xcite .
the performance of qstbc with respect to outage mutual information ( omi ) for the special case of one receive antenna and four or eight transmit antennas was analyzed via simulations in  @xcite and  @xcite and it was shown , that the qstbc are capable to achieve a significant portion of the mimo - omi . furthermore , it was shown in  @xcite , that qstbc in conjunction with optimal ( nonlinear ) and suboptimal ( linear ) detectors provide a tradeoff between performance and complexity .
the key achievements of this paper are as follows    * we generalize the results in  @xcite to @xmath3 transmit and an arbitrary number of receive antennas . *
we show , that due to the employment of qstbc the eigenvalues of the resulting equivalent channel are pairwise independent and identical ( i.i.d ) noncentral chi - square distributed with @xmath2 degrees of freedom ( @xmath4 ) with noncentrality parameter @xmath5 .
furthermore , we show that the eigenvectors of the equivalent channel are independent of each channel realization , i.e. they are constant .    in other words
, we first show that the combination of qstbc with a mimo system results also in a equivalent channel similar to ostbc and then fully characterize the stochastic nature of this equivalent channel . based on these important insights ,
we are able to provide the following results    * an analytical lower bound for the outage probability achieved with qstbc , which is tight for low signal - to - noise - ratios ( snr ) values and also for increasing number of receive antennas ; * an upper bound on the outage probability , which is tight for high snr values . for the case of four transmit and an arbitrary number of receive antennas we derive analytical expressions for this bound
* finally , we exploit the special structure of the qstbc and apply a new transmit strategy , which decouples the signals transmitted from different antennas in order to detect the symbols separately as in the case of ostbc .
the performance of this linear detector is equivalent to the non - linear maximum - likelihood ( ml)-detector in  @xcite .
the remainder of this paper is organized as follows . in section  [ seq : system_model ]
, we introduce the system model and establish the notation .
the design of qstbc for @xmath3 transmit antennas is shown in section  [ sec : diversity_analy ] .
the complete characterization of the equivalent channel model and other key achievements of this paper are described in section  [ sec : preprocessing ] . as an possible application of the results in this section
, we present the analysis of the outage probability achieved with qstbc in section  [ sec : perfanaly ] , followed by some simulations and concluding remarks in section  [ seq : simulations ] and  [ seq : conclusion ] .
we consider a system with @xmath0 transmit and @xmath1 receive antennas .
our system model is defined by @xmath6 where @xmath7 denotes the ( @xmath8 ) transmit matrix , @xmath9 $ ] the ( @xmath10 ) receive matrix , @xmath11 $ ] the ( @xmath12 ) channel matrix , and @xmath13 $ ] the complex ( @xmath10 ) white gaussian noise ( awgn ) matrix , respectively .
an entry @xmath14 of @xmath15 ( @xmath16 ) denotes the complex noise at the @xmath17th receiver for a given time instant @xmath18 .
the real and imaginary parts of @xmath19 are independent and @xmath20(0,@xmath21 ) distributed .
an entry of the channel matrix is represented by @xmath22 and describes the complex gain of the channel between the @xmath23th transmit ( @xmath24 ) and the @xmath17th receive ( @xmath16 ) antenna , where the real and imaginary parts of the channel gains are independent and normal distributed random variables and @xmath25 is @xmath26 distributed , where @xmath27 is the channel mean or ricean component .
the channel matrix is assumed to be constant for a block of @xmath28 symbols and changes independently from block to block .
the average power of the symbols transmitted from each antenna is normalized to one , so that the average power of the received signal at each receive antenna is @xmath29 and the signal - to - noise ratio ( snr ) is @xmath30 .
it is further assumed that the transmitter has no csi and the receiver has perfect csi .
a space - time block code is defined by its transmit matrix @xmath7 , which is a function of the vector @xmath31^t$ ] .
the rate @xmath32 of a space - time block code is defined as @xmath33 . in this paper , we focus on rate one qstbc with length @xmath34 , therefore @xmath35 .
now , let us split the vector @xmath36 into two vectors , @xmath37 and @xmath38 , for reasons that will be clear later on .
the elements of @xmath36 with odd index @xmath23 are collected in @xmath37 and with even index in @xmath38 , respectively .
both parts of @xmath36 are given as @xmath39= \mathbf{\gamma}\mathbf{s}^- ,      \mathbf{x}_{\mathrm{even}}=   \mathbf{\gamma}\left[\begin{array}{c }     s_{\nicefrac{n_t}{2}+1 } \\
\vdots \\
s_{n_t } \\   \end{array}\right]= \mathbf{\gamma}\mathbf{s}^+,\ ] ] with @xmath40 , where @xmath41 denotes a complex modulation signal set with unit average power , e.g. @xmath42-psk .
furthermore , @xmath43 is a unitary matrix .
more details on @xmath44 and its effect on the detection scheme will be discussed in section  [ sec : trans_strat ] .    starting with the well known alamouti scheme  @xcite for @xmath45 transmit antennas as a @xmath46\;,\ ] ]
the generalization of the transmit matrix for the qstbc with @xmath0 ( @xmath47 ) is done in the following recursive way @xmath48\nonumber\;,\ ] ] where @xmath49 and the diagonal @xmath50 matrix @xmath51 is given by @xmath52 .    for the case of @xmath53 transmit antennas we have @xmath54\;.\ ] ]    in this work , we use the alamouti scheme as the basis in order to construct the rate one qstbc . however , it is also possible to construct qstbc with rates lower than one based on other ostbc  @xcite . in the following section ,
we perform channel - matched filtering as the first stage of preprocessing at the receiver in order to obtain the equivalent channel model , followed by the decoupling of the system model in two parts . afterwards
, we analyze the eigenvalues and the eigenvectors of the resulting equivalent channel , leading to important insights of the properties of qstbc .
noise pre - whitening as the second stage of preprocessing at the receiver is considered in section  [ sec : noise pre - whitening ] .
first of all , we briefly review the usual mimo fading channel without any coordinated coding and the impact of ostbc on the mimo channel in order to provide a better insight into the properties of qstbc .      in this case , after channel matched filtering to ( [ eq : system ] ) , we have @xmath55 where @xmath56 is the singular value decomposition ( svd ) of @xmath57 , where the unitary matrices @xmath58,@xmath59 contain the eigenvectors of @xmath57 .
the joint density function of the eigenvalues @xmath60 of @xmath61 in @xmath62 in the rayleigh fading case @xmath63 is given as  @xcite @xmath64 where @xmath65 is a normalizing factor , @xmath66 and @xmath67 .
it is obvious , that the eigenvalues are not independent of each other and it is well known that the matrix of eigenvectors @xmath59 depend on the actual channel realization .      in case of ostbc ,
the following holds for the transmit matrix @xmath68 starting with ( [ eq : system ] ) , after some manipulations and channel matched filtering one arrives at @xmath69 where @xmath70.\ ] ] since there is no interaction between the elements of @xmath36 , the equation above can be decomposed into @xmath71 parts .
the resulting equivalent channel for each element of @xmath36 of the ostbc is then a single - input - single - output ( siso ) channel given as @xmath72 which is equal to the frobenius norm of the actual mimo channel matrix @xmath57 .    in case of the rate one qstbc discussed in this paper , the actual mimo channel is also transformed into a equivalent channel given as @xmath73 . differently from the ostbc
the equivalent channel of qstbc is still a mimo channel , however with very interesting properties like constant eigenvectors and i.i.d .
eigenvalues following a noncentral @xmath4-distribution as derived in the following .
after rearranging and complex - conjugating some rows of @xmath74 the system equation in ( [ eq : system ] ) can be rewritten as @xmath75 where @xmath76^t$ ] and @xmath77 is given as @xmath78.\ ] ] thus it appears that the @xmath79 , with @xmath80 , are obtained recursively , where the recursion starts with @xmath45 , @xmath81\;.\ ] ] in order to perform channel - matched filtering we multiply @xmath82 from left to ( [ eq : system_h_vorne ] ) to get @xmath83 where the noise vector @xmath84 is spatially colored and @xmath85 is given as @xmath86,\ ] ] where @xmath87 and @xmath88 .
an important property of the qstbc the system in ( [ eq : system_zerlegt ] ) can be decoupled into two parts due to the special structure of @xmath85 as described in the following .
the decoupling comes from the fact that for qstbc , it holds that  @xcite @xmath89 where @xmath90^t=[x_1,0,x_3,0,\dots , x_{n_t-1},0]^t$ ] and @xmath91^t$ ] .
the property in  ( [ eq : zerlegprobqstbc ] ) is very crucial , because this enables a simple maximum - likelihood decoding algorithm . assuming perfect channel estimation is available
, the receiver computes the following decision metric over all possible transmit matrices and decides in favor of the transmit matrix that minimizes the following decision metric based on  ( [ eq : system ] ) : @xmath92 after some manipulations , we arrive at @xmath93 where @xmath94 is the trace function . @xmath95 and @xmath96
are given as @xmath97 respectively .
the above decision metric can be decomposed into two parts , one of which @xmath98 is only a function of @xmath99 , and the other one @xmath100 is only a function of @xmath101
. thus the minimization of ( [ eq : maximum_liklihood ] ) is equivalent to minimizing these two parts separately .
note that , due to the processing at the receiver , the property in  ( [ eq : zerlegprobqstbc ] ) is projected on the channel matrix @xmath85 in  ( [ eq : system_zerlegt ] ) .
the decoupled parts depend either on @xmath37 or @xmath38 given in ( [ eq : x_oddandx_evendef ] ) .
thus , it is now possible to write an decomposed system model for each part based on  ( [ eq : system_zerlegt ] ) . the decomposed system model for the part with @xmath37 ( and similarly for @xmath38 ) can be rewritten as @xmath102 for illustration , we present two examples for the case of @xmath53 and @xmath103 transmit antennas .
( @xmath53 transmit antennas ) in this case , @xmath104 in ( [ eq : neuer_kanal ] ) is given as @xmath105 \nonumber \;.\ ] ] and @xmath106 appears in ( [ eq : system_zerlegt ] ) as @xmath107\left[\begin{array}{c }        x_1 \\        x_2 \\        x_3 \\        x_4 \\
\end{array}\right]+ \mathbf{n}''\;,\ ] ] where @xmath108 and @xmath109 are given as @xmath110 respectively .
from ( [ eq : system_zerlegbar_bsp4mt ] ) , it is now directly obvious , that the system equation can be decoupled into two parts , which then can be considered separately . for the case considered in this example , the decomposed system model for @xmath37 ( and similarly for @xmath38 , cf .
( [ eq : system_model_s1s3_colored_noise ] ) ) can be written as @xmath111 + \widetilde{\mathbf{n}}\;,\ ] ] with a non - orthogonal @xmath112 \;.\ ] ]    ( @xmath103 transmit antennas ) the same procedure applied here results in a @xmath113 given as @xmath114\;,\ ] ] where @xmath115    the general case of arbitrary @xmath0 and very important insights about the eigenvalue decomposition , the eigenvalues themselves and the eigenvectors of the equivalent channel @xmath73 , which are crucial and necessary for further analysis , e.g. , the derivations of the lower and upper bound , are provided in the following section .      in order to completely characterize the equivalent channel with respect to the eigenvalues and eigenvectors , we first look at the properties of matrices with certain structures and
then show that the equivalent channel matrices fulfill this special structure . let the matrix @xmath116 , where @xmath117 , has the following recursive definition @xmath118\;.\ ] ] similarly @xmath119\;,\ ] ] where the recursion starts with @xmath120 \;\textrm {   and   } \ ;      \mathbf{n}_2(\alpha_3,\alpha_4)=\left[% \begin{array}{cc }    i\alpha_3 & \alpha_4 \\
-\alpha_4 & i\alpha_3 \\ \end{array}% \right]\;.\ ] ]    the matrices @xmath121 and @xmath122 have the following eigenvalue decompositions @xmath123 where @xmath124\ ] ] and @xmath125 = \phantom{i}\left[% \begin{array}{cc }    \alpha_1+\alpha_2 & 0 \\    0 & \alpha_1-\alpha_2 \\ \end{array}% \right]\ ] ] @xmath126=i\left[% \begin{array}{cc }    \alpha_3-\alpha_4 & 0 \\    0 & \alpha_3+\alpha_4 \\ \end{array}% \right]\ ] ]    immediately the following question follows : is their any structure how to derive the eigenvalues of the matrices of higher @xmath127 , i.e. , if the eigenvalues of @xmath128 are given , how can we compute the eigenvalues of @xmath129 .
( note that , if the eigenvalues of @xmath128 are given it is straightforward to derive the eigenvalues of @xmath130 ) . in order to answer this question we are able to state the following lemma , where the arguments of @xmath116 and @xmath131 are omitted .
[ lem : fixedeigenv ] let @xmath132 be as given in ( [ eq : structurea_n]),([eq : structureb_n ] ) , then @xmath132 with @xmath133,@xmath134 have the following eigenvalue decomposition : @xmath135 where @xmath136 @xmath137\mathbf{\pi}_n^h\ ; , \end{aligned}\ ] ] @xmath138\mathbf{\pi}_n^h\ ; , \end{aligned}\ ] ] and @xmath139_{ij}=\delta\left[2j-1-i\right]+\delta\left[2(j-\frac{n}{2})-i\right]\\ ] ] with @xmath140 $ ] denoting the delta function , giving @xmath141=1 $ ] for @xmath142 and @xmath141=0 $ ] for @xmath143 , and @xmath144_{ij}$ ] denotes the @xmath145-element of the @xmath146 permutation matrix @xmath147 .    the proof is given in appendix  [ sec : svd_vonhtildeallg ] . + it is important to realize that @xmath148 and @xmath149 are constructed with different arguments .
the from @xmath85 in  ( [ eq : channel_vorzerleg ] ) in even and odd block structure re - sorted equivalent channel matrix @xmath73 in  ( [ eq : system_model_s1s3_colored_noise ] ) has exactly the same structure as @xmath116 .
therefore , lemma [ lem : fixedeigenv ] can be directly applied to @xmath73 . to emphasis the usefullness of the resulting property of the qstbc , we are able to state the following theorem .
[ theo : consteigenvec ] the left and right eigenvectors of the equivalent channel in  ( [ eq : system_model_s1s3_colored_noise ] ) of qstbc , which fulfill the recursive construction rule of  ( [ eq : neuer_kanal ] ) are given by eq .
( [ eq : eigenvecvn ] ) and therefore constant for any arbitrary channel realization .
another important aspect of lemma  [ lem : fixedeigenv ] is the fact that the eigenvalues in @xmath148 can be obtained simply by adding the eigenvalues of @xmath150 and @xmath151 in an appropriate manner as done in ( [ eq : building_eigvalues ] ) ( cf .
appendix  [ sec : svd_vonhtildeallg ] ) , which will be used in the following analysis of the qstbc .
[ lem : eigenwertemitmatra ] let @xmath152 , @xmath153 , @xmath154 be as in lemma  [ lem : fixedeigenv ] .
the eigenvalues of the equivalent channel matrix @xmath73 of the qstbc are given by the recursive equations  ( [ eq : eigenvalsn ] ) .
let @xmath155 and @xmath156 , where @xmath153 , @xmath157 are the eigenvalues of @xmath158 .
then for any @xmath29 and @xmath1 , the eigenvalues @xmath159 of @xmath160 are obtained as follows @xmath161 where the matrices @xmath162 with @xmath163 and @xmath0,@xmath164 are given as @xmath165 , \mathbf{a}_{n_t}^{j+1}=\frac{1}{2}\left[\begin{array}{rr }         \mathbf{a}_{\frac{n_t}{2}}^{j ' }    & \mathbf{b}_{\frac{n_t}{2}}^{j ' } \\
-\mathbf{b}_{\frac{n_t}{2}}^{j ' } & \mathbf{a}_{\frac{n_t}{2}}^{j ' }      \\
\end{array}\right ] %     \frac{1}{2}\left(\mathbf{i}_2\otimes\mathbf{a}_{\frac{n_t}{2}}^j \mp i\left[\begin{array}{rr } %        0 & 1 \\ %       -1 & 0 \\ %     \end{array}\right]\otimes\mathbf{b}_{\frac{n_t}{2}}^{j}\right)\ ] ] with @xmath166 and @xmath167 .    the proof is given in appendix  [ sec : proof_eigenwertemitmatra ] .
[ theo : muirhead ] if @xmath25 is @xmath26 and @xmath168 is an @xmath169 matrix then @xmath170 has a noncentral @xmath171 distribution if and only if @xmath168 is idempotent ( @xmath172 ) , in which case the degrees of freedom is @xmath173 ( where @xmath174 and @xmath175 denote the rank and trace of @xmath168 , respectively ) and @xmath176 .
[ lem : matrahermitidempotent ] the matrices @xmath162 are hermitian and idempotent .    the proof is given in appendix  [ sec : proof_matrahermitidempotent ] .
+ from lemma  [ lem : eigenwertemitmatra ] and  [ lem : matrahermitidempotent ] , it is now possible to prove the following theorem .
[ lem : unabh_eigenwerte ] let @xmath177 defined as in lemma  [ lem : eigenwertemitmatra ] be the diagonal eigenvalue matrix of the equivalent channel matrix of an qstbc , which fulfill the recursive construction rule of  ( [ eq : neuer_kanal ] ) . then for any @xmath29 and @xmath1 , the eigenvalues @xmath159 of @xmath160 are pairwise independent and identical noncentral chi - square distributed with @xmath2 degrees of freedom .
it is important to realize that @xmath178 and @xmath179 .
recall from section [ sec : preprocessing ] , that we have decoupled the system into two independent parts .
the derivation above holds therefore for both parts , i.e. , each eigenvalue appears twice , once for each part .
the proof of theorem  [ lem : unabh_eigenwerte ] is given in appendix  [ sec : proof_unabh_eigenwerte ] .
since @xmath180 in ( [ eq : system_model_s1s3_colored_noise ] ) is colored noise , the next step is to perform pre - whitening . with the knowledge of the theorems  [ theo : consteigenvec ] and  [ lem : unabh_eigenwerte ] it is easy to compute the pre - whitening filter @xmath181 at the receiver now . to this end , we need just the eigenvalue decomposition of @xmath73 given as @xmath182 with @xmath155 . therefore the pre - whitening filter is given as @xmath183 . by multiplying @xmath181 from the left to ( [ eq : system_model_s1s3_colored_noise ] )
we arrive at @xmath184 where the entries of @xmath185 are mutually i.i.d .
gaussian processes again .    in the case of @xmath53 transmit antennas @xmath186 in ( [ eq : system_model_nach_whiting ] ) is given as @xmath187\;,\ ] ] and @xmath188      from theorems  [ theo : consteigenvec ] and  [ lem : unabh_eigenwerte ] , it is now possible to determine @xmath44 adequately , resulting in a attractive system equation , which allows a very simple but effective ml - decoding . to emphasize this property
we formulate the following corollary .
[ cor : linmldetec ] by choosing the matrix @xmath44 in ( [ eq : x_oddandx_evendef ] ) as @xmath189 , ( [ eq : system_model_nach_whiting ] ) can be rewritten as @xmath190 at this point , the elements of @xmath191 ( and also @xmath192 ) are completely decoupled , since they experience no interference from each other .
thus , a linear ml - detector is able to detect the symbols ( or elements ) transmitted from the antennas separately .
the matrix @xmath186 in ( [ eq : system_model_nach_whiting ] ) can be decomposed as @xmath193 where @xmath194 is a diagonal matrix containing the singular values of @xmath186 .
since @xmath195 is constant for all channel realizations , we can set @xmath196 without any knowledge of the current channel realization . using ( [ eq : zerlegung_h ] ) in ( [ eq : system_model_nach_whiting ] ) results in ( [ eq : systemwithd ] ) . that concludes the proof .    for @xmath53 transmit antennas , @xmath197 and @xmath198
are given as @xmath199 , \mathbf{d}_2=\sqrt{2}\left[\begin{array}{rr }    \tilde{\mu}_4 ^ 1 & 0       \\
0 & \tilde{\mu}_4 ^ 2 \\ \end{array}\right]\;.\ ] ]    for @xmath103 transmit antennas , we have the following @xmath200 @xmath201\ ] ] and @xmath202 with @xmath203
based on these new insights , we provide some performance analysis in this section , where we focus on the case of rayleigh fading @xmath63 .
the mutual information of a mimo system with @xmath29 transmit and @xmath1 receive antennas with no csi at the transmitter and perfect csi at the receiver by using the optimal transmit strategy is given as  @xcite @xmath205 the portion of the mutual information achieved with qstbc is @xmath206 the outage probability @xmath207 achievable with qstbc is defined as the probability that @xmath208 is smaller than a certain rate @xmath32 , i.e. @xmath209\;.\ ] ] unfortunately , the exact analysis of @xmath207 is not available
. therefore , we provide a lower and upper bound in the following .
the outage probability @xmath207 is lower bounded by @xmath210    by using the arithmetic mean - geometric mean inequality , i.e. @xmath211 with equality if and only if @xmath212 we obtain an upper bound for @xmath208 ( and therefore a lower bound on @xmath207 ) given as @xmath213 where @xmath214 for the general case of arbitrary @xmath29 similar to the cases @xmath53 and @xmath103 .
the lower bound on the outage probability @xmath207 can be written as @xmath215\geq\mathrm{pr}[i_q^u < r]=    \mathrm{pr}\left[\alpha_1<\frac{n_t}{\rho}\left(2^r-1\right)\right]\;. \nonumber\ ] ] since @xmath108 is chi - square distributed random variable with @xmath216 degrees of freedom , @xmath207 is given as  @xcite ) in ( [ eq : poutlowerbound ] ) . that concludes the proof .
[ lem : tightness_lowerbound ] the lower bound in ( [ eq : poutlowerbound ] ) gets tight for low snr values or when @xmath1 increases .    the proof is given in appendix  [ sec : proof_tighnesslowbound ] .      using the positive definiteness of @xmath177 , ( [ eq : mutualinfoqstbcdet ] )
can be lower bounded as @xmath217 thus , the upper bound on @xmath207 is given as @xmath218     \leq \mathrm{pr}[i_q^l < r]=p\big[\det\left(\mathbf{d}_{\frac{n_t}{2}}\mathbf{d}_{\frac{n_t}{2}}\right)<\underbrace{\left(\frac{n_t}{\rho}\right)^{\nicefrac{n_t}{2}}\left(2^{\frac{rn_t}{2}}-1\right)}_{\tilde{r}}\big ] \;.\nonumber\end{aligned}\ ] ] for the special case of @xmath53 transmit antennas , @xmath207 is given as @xmath219\;.\ ] ] since @xmath220 is a product of two chi - square distributed random variables , both with @xmath221 degrees of freedom , @xmath207 is given by  ( * ? ? ?
* , eq.9.9.34 ) @xmath222 where @xmath223 is the psi function  ( * ? ? ?
* , eq.8.360 ) and @xmath224 is the gamma function  @xcite .
note that for high snr a useful and simple approximation of the outage probability can be obtained by retaining only the first term ( i.e. @xmath225 ) of the series within the upper bound .
some simulation results of the performance of qstbc and their interpretation are presented in the following section .      in fig .
[ fig : capacity_nr1 ] , the omi of qstbc @xmath208 with our new transmit strategy and our linear detector is compared with the nonlinear ml - detector and zf - detector in  @xcite . additionally , the omi of a mimo system with @xmath53 and @xmath226 is depicted . from the fig .
, we observe that our new transmit strategy outperforms the zf - detector of  @xcite and achieve the same portion of mutual information as the non - linear ml - detector presented in  @xcite .     and @xmath227 .
]    in fig .
[ fig : capacity_nr2 ] , the performance of qstbc in terms of omi with @xmath53 and @xmath103 antennas is depicted for @xmath228 .    ,
@xmath103 transmit and @xmath228 receive antennas . ]    for @xmath226 , the performance with @xmath103 is similar to the case of @xmath53 transmit antennas ( depicted in fig .
[ fig : capacity_nr2 ] ) , i.e. we achieve a significant fraction of the omi . however , by increasing the number of receive antennas , we observe in fig .
[ fig : capacity_nr2 ] , that the performance of qstbc with @xmath103 as well as with @xmath53 is dramatically reduced in terms of achievable omi .    in fig .
[ fig : outage ] , @xmath207 of qstbc with @xmath53 transmit and @xmath226 to @xmath229 and @xmath230 receive antennas is depicted . from the fig .
we observe that our lower bound on the performance of qstbc with respect to @xmath207 gets tight for increasing number of receive antennas .
even the upper bound performs very well and shows to be useful .
transmit and different size of receive antennas @xmath1 , rate=4 . ]    the performance of qstbc with respect to @xmath207 is depicted in fig .
[ fig : outage_nt8 ] for @xmath103 transmit antennas .
similarly to the case of @xmath53 transmit antennas , the lower bound gets tight by using many antennas at the receiver side .
transmit and different size of receive antennas @xmath1 , rate=4 . ]
in this paper , we generalized the qstbc in  @xcite to @xmath3 transmit and an arbitrary number of receive antennas .
our most important results are given in the theorems  [ theo : consteigenvec ] and  [ lem : unabh_eigenwerte ] in section  [ sec : eigvalandeigvecequichannel ] and reveal the useful properties of the resulting equivalent channel for qstbc . in more details , theorem  [ theo : consteigenvec ] state that the eigenvectors of the equivalent channel are independent of each channel realization , i.e. they are fixed .
this property can be directly exploited for preprocessing , which allows a very efficient linear ml detection ( corollary  [ cor : linmldetec ] ) . in more details
, we developed a new transmit strategy , which allows to apply a linear ml - detector as in the case of ostbc , such that the symbols from different antennas can be detected separately .
the performance of our linear detector in terms of mutual information is equal to the nonlinear ml - detector in  @xcite .
the theorem  [ lem : unabh_eigenwerte ] offers insights in the statistics of qstbc .
it is proved that the eigenvalues of the equivalent channel are i.i.d .
noncentral @xmath4 .
these insights were used to derive upper and lower bounds on the outage probability with qstbc .
it was shown , both analytically and via simulations , that the lower bound gets tight for increasing number of receive antennas and also in the low snr - regime . from simulation results
, we observed that the qstbc approaches the outage mutual information only in the case of @xmath226 receive antenna . by increasing the number of receive antennas , the loss in terms of mutual
information increases unbounded with the snr .
in the following , the arguments of @xmath231 and @xmath149 are omitted occasionally in order to increase the readability of the paper .    the proof is done by the principle of induction .
we start with the initial case @xmath232 . from  ( [ eq : structurea_n ] )
, it follows @xmath233\stackrel{(\ref{eq : svd_a_2b_2})}{= }    \left[% \begin{array}{rr }    \mathbf{v}_2\mathbf{s}_2\mathbf{v}_2^h   & \mathbf{v}_2\mathbf{t}_2\mathbf{v}_2^h \\
-\mathbf{v}_2\mathbf{t}_2\mathbf{v}_2^h & \mathbf{v}_2\mathbf{s}_2\mathbf{v}_2^h \\ \end{array}% \right ] \nonumber \\ = & \left[% \begin{array}{cc }    \mathbf{v}_2 & \mathbf{0 } \\    \mathbf{0 } & \mathbf{v}_2 \\
\end{array}% \right]\left[% \begin{array}{cc }    \mathbf{s}_2 & \mathbf{t}_2 \\
-\mathbf{t}_2 & \mathbf{s}_2 \\
\end{array}% \right]\left[% \begin{array}{cc }    \mathbf{v}_2^h & \mathbf{0 } \\    \mathbf{0 } & \mathbf{v}_2^h \\ \end{array}% \right ] \nonumber\end{aligned}\ ] ] @xmath234\mathbf{\pi}_4 \left[% \begin{array}{cccc }    \mu_2 ^ 1   & \nu_2 ^ 1    & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\multirow{2}{*}{{\mbox{\huge $ 0 $ } } } } \\
-\nu_2 ^ 1 & \mu_2 ^ 1    &          &   \\
\multicolumn{2}{c}{\multirow{2}{*}{{\mbox{\huge $ 0 $ } } } }          & \mu_2 ^ 2    & \nu_2 ^ 2 \\            &           & -\nu_2 ^ 2   & \mu_2 ^ 2 \\ \end{array}% \right]\mathbf{\pi}_4^h \left[% \begin{array}{cc }    \mathbf{v}_2^h & \mathbf{0 } \\
\mathbf{0 } & \mathbf{v}_2^h \\ \end{array}% \right ] \nonumber\\ = & \underbrace{\left[% \begin{array}{cc }    \mathbf{v}_2 & \mathbf{0 } \\
\mathbf{0 } & \mathbf{v}_2
\\ \end{array}% \right]\mathbf{\pi}_4 \left[% \begin{array}{cc }    \mathbf{v}_2 & \mathbf{0 } \\
\mathbf{0 } & \mathbf{v}_2 \\
\end{array}% \right]}_{\mathbf{v}_4 } \mathbf{s}_4 \underbrace{\left[% \begin{array}{cc }    \mathbf{v}_2^h & \mathbf{0 } \\
\mathbf{0 } & \mathbf{v}_2^h \\
\end{array}% \right]\mathbf{\pi}_4^h \left[% \begin{array}{cc }    \mathbf{v}_2^h & \mathbf{0 } \\    \mathbf{0 } & \mathbf{v}_2^h \\
\end{array}% \right]}_{\mathbf{v}_4^h}\ ; , \nonumber\end{aligned}\ ] ] with @xmath235 given as @xmath236\;,\ ] ] @xmath237 , where @xmath238 which is equivalent to @xmath239\mathbf{\pi}_4^h\ ] ] the same procedure applied to @xmath240 results in a @xmath241 given as @xmath242 with @xmath243 which is equivalent to @xmath244\mathbf{\pi}_4^h\;.\ ] ] now assume that the following hypothesis holds for @xmath245 , i.e. @xmath246 then the following inductive step is true @xmath247\stackrel{(\ref{eq : induct_hypothesis})}{= }    \left[% \begin{array}{rr }    \mathbf{v}_\frac{k}{2}\mathbf{s}_\frac{k}{2}\mathbf{v}_\frac{k}{2}^h   & \mathbf{v}_\frac{k}{2}\mathbf{t}_\frac{k}{2}\mathbf{v}_\frac{k}{2}^h \\
-\mathbf{v}_\frac{k}{2}\mathbf{t}_\frac{k}{2}\mathbf{v}_\frac{k}{2}^h & \mathbf{v}_\frac{k}{2}\mathbf{s}_\frac{k}{2}\mathbf{v}_\frac{k}{2}^h \\
\end{array}% \right]\\ = & \left[% \begin{array}{cc }    \mathbf{v}_\frac{k}{2 } & \mathbf{0 } \\    \mathbf{0 } & \mathbf{v}_\frac{k}{2 } \\ \end{array}% \right]\left[% \begin{array}{cc }    \mathbf{s}_\frac{k}{2 } & \mathbf{t}_\frac{k}{2 } \\    -\mathbf{t}_\frac{k}{2 } & \mathbf{s}_\frac{k}{2 } \\ \end{array}% \right]\left[% \begin{array}{cc }    \mathbf{v}_\frac{k}{2}^h & \mathbf{0 } \\    \mathbf{0 } & \mathbf{v}_\frac{k}{2}^h \\
\end{array}% \right]\\ = & \left[% \begin{array}{cc }    \mathbf{v}_\frac{k}{2 } & \mathbf{0 } \\    \mathbf{0 } & \mathbf{v}_\frac{k}{2 } \\ \end{array}% \right]\mathbf{\pi}_k \left[% \begin{array}{cccc }    \mathbf{q}_{\frac{k}{2}}^1 &                             &        \multicolumn{2}{c}{\multirow{2}{*}{{\mbox{\huge $ 0 $ } } } }   \\                              & \mathbf{q}_{\frac{k}{2}}^2   &     &        \\                             \multicolumn{2}{c}{\multirow{2}{*}{{\mbox{\huge $ 0 $ } } } }    & \ddots &           \\                         &          &        & \mathbf{q}_{\frac{k}{2}}^{\frac{k}{2 } } \\
\end{array}% \right]\mathbf{\pi}_k^h \left[% \begin{array}{cc }    \mathbf{v}_\frac{k}{2}^h & \mathbf{0 } \\    \mathbf{0}\mathbf { } & \mathbf{v}_\frac{k}{2}^h
\\ \end{array}% \right ] ,   \nonumber\end{aligned}\ ] ] @xmath248 where @xmath249\ ] ] and @xmath250 with @xmath251 which is equivalent to @xmath252\mathbf{\pi}_k^h.\ ] ] the same procedure applied to @xmath253 results in the same @xmath200 and @xmath254 with @xmath255 which is again equivalent to @xmath256\mathbf{\pi}_k^h.\ ] ] since the initial case of @xmath257 is true and the inductive step is true , the statement in ( [ eq : svd_statement ] ) is true for all @xmath258 . that concludes the proof .
the proof is done by the principle of induction . the outline of the proof is as follows .
for the initial case of @xmath53 , we need the eigenvalues @xmath259 and @xmath260 for @xmath45 , i.e. the alamouti scheme , as indicated in  ( [ eq : eigvalnt4aussummuandnu ] ) .
the first step is therefore to construct the eigenvalues for @xmath53 with the eigenvalues of @xmath45 . using  ( [ eq : building_eigvalues ] ) and
( [ eq : build_eigvalnu ] ) , we observe that the eigenvalues for @xmath53 can be also obtained with the eigenvalues for @xmath103 , which is the second step revealing an important instruction of constructing eigenvalues @xmath261,@xmath262 from @xmath263,@xmath264 .
it follows the hypothesis and the inductive step concluding the proof .
now , we start with the well known alamouti scheme . by applying the alamouti scheme ( @xmath45 ) , @xmath160 as well as @xmath37 and @xmath38
are only scalars .
thus , the only eigenvalue of @xmath265 of the decomposed system model for the part with @xmath37 ( and similar for @xmath38 ) is given as @xmath266 where @xmath267^t$ ] and @xmath268 similarly , @xmath269    we are now able to start with the initial case of @xmath53 .
the first eigenvalue of the qstbc for the part with @xmath37 ( and similar for @xmath38 ) is given as in  ( [ eq : building_eigvalues ] ) ( with @xmath156 and @xmath270 ) @xmath271 @xmath272\left[% \begin{array}{c }    \mathbf{h}_{1\rightarrow 2,i } \\
\mathbf{h}_{3\rightarrow 4,i } \\
\end{array}% \right]- i\left[% \begin{array}{cccc }    -h_{3i}^ * & h_{4i}^ * & h_{1i}^ * & -h_{2i}^ * \\
\end{array}% \right]\left[% \begin{array}{c }    \mathbf{h}_{1\rightarrow 2,i } \\    \mathbf{h}_{3\rightarrow 4,i } \\ \end{array}% \right]\right)\nonumber\end{aligned}\ ] ] @xmath273\mathbf{h}_{1\rightarrow 4,i}-i\left[% \begin{array}{cccc }     h_{1i}^ * & -h_{2i}^ * & -h_{3i}^ * & h_{4i}^*\\ \end{array}% \right]\frac{1}{2}\left[% \begin{array}{cc }    \mathbf{0 } & \mathbf{a}_2 \\
\mathbf{a}_2 & \mathbf{0 } \\
\end{array}% \right]\mathbf{h}_{1\rightarrow 4,i } \label{eq : expansnt2tont4}\\ & = \sum_{i=1}^{n_r}\mathbf{h}_{1\rightarrow 4,i}^h\frac{1}{2}\left[% \begin{array}{cc }    \mathbf{a}_2 & \mathbf{0 } \\
\mathbf{0 } & \mathbf{a}_2 \\
\end{array}% \right]\mathbf{h}_{1\rightarrow 4,i}-i\mathbf{h}_{1\rightarrow 4,i}^h\frac{1}{2}\left[% \begin{array}{cc }    \mathbf{\theta}_2 & \mathbf{0 } \\
\mathbf{0 } & -\mathbf{\theta}_2 \\
\end{array}% \right]\left[% \begin{array}{cc }    \mathbf{0 } & \mathbf{a}_2 \\
\mathbf{a}_2 & \mathbf{0 } \\ \end{array}% \right ]    \mathbf{h}_{1\rightarrow 4,i}\nonumber\\   & = \sum_{i=1}^{n_r}\mathbf{h}_{1\rightarrow 4,i}^h\frac{1}{2}\left(\left[% \begin{array}{cc }    \mathbf{a}_2 & \mathbf{0 } \\    \mathbf{0 } & \mathbf{a}_2 \\
\end{array}% \right]-\left[% \begin{array}{cc }    \mathbf{0 } & i\mathbf{\theta}_2\mathbf{a}_2 \\
-i\mathbf{\theta}_2\mathbf{a}_2 & \mathbf{0 } \\
\end{array}% \right]\right)\mathbf{h}_{1\rightarrow 4,i } = \mathbf{h}_{1\rightarrow 4,i}^h\mathbf{a}_4 ^ 1\mathbf{h}_{1\rightarrow 4,i}\;,\label{eq : eigvalnt4fromalpha}\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath274\;.\ ] ] in an analogous manner ,
we get @xmath275 given as @xmath276    on the other hand , with  ( [ eq : building_eigvalues ] ) we have @xmath277    \mathbf{h}_{1\rightarrow 8,i}\right)\nonumber\\ & = \sum_{i=1}^{n_r}\frac{1}{4}\mathbf{h}_{1\rightarrow 8,i}^h    \mathbf{h}_{1\rightarrow 8,i}-i\mathbf{h}_{1\rightarrow 8,i}^h\frac{1}{4}\left[% \begin{array}{cccc }    \mathbf{\theta}_2 &   & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\multirow{2}{*}{{\mbox{\huge $ 0 $ } } } } \\     & -\mathbf{\theta}_2 & & \\
\multicolumn{2}{c}{\multirow{2}{*}{{\mbox{\huge $ 0 $ } } } } & \mathbf{\theta}_2 &   \\   & &   & -\mathbf{\theta}_2 \\
\end{array}% \right]\left[% \begin{array}{cccc }    \mathbf{0 } & \mathbf{a}_2 & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\multirow{2}{*}{{\mbox{\huge $ 0 $ } } } } \\
\mathbf{a}_2 & \mathbf{0 } & & \\
\multicolumn{2}{c}{\multirow{2}{*}{{\mbox{\huge $ 0 $ } } } } & \mathbf{0 } & \mathbf{a}_2 \\   & &   \mathbf{a}_2 & \mathbf{0 } \\
\end{array}% \right ]    \mathbf{h}_{1\rightarrow 8,i}\nonumber    \end{aligned}\ ] ] @xmath278    -i\left[% \begin{array}{cccc }    \mathbf{0 } & \mathbf{\theta}_2\mathbf{a}_2 & \multicolumn{2}{c}{\multirow{2}{*}{{\mbox{\huge $ 0 $ } } } } \\
-\mathbf{\theta}_2\mathbf{a}_2 & \mathbf{0 } & & \\
\multicolumn{2}{c}{\multirow{2}{*}{{\mbox{\huge $ 0 $ } } } } & \mathbf{0 } & \mathbf{\theta}_2\mathbf{a}_2 \\   & &   -\mathbf{\theta}_2\mathbf{a}_2 & \mathbf{0 } \\
\end{array}% \right]\right )    \mathbf{h}_{1\rightarrow 8,i}\nonumber    \end{aligned}\ ] ] @xmath279\right )    \mathbf{h}_{1\rightarrow 8,i}\nonumber\\      & = \sum_{i=1}^{n_r}\mathbf{h}_{1\rightarrow 8,i}^h\left(\frac{1}{2 }    \left[% \begin{array}{cc }    \mathbf{a}_4 ^ 1 & \mathbf{0 } \\
\mathbf{0 } & \mathbf{a}_4 ^ 1 \\
\end{array}% \right]\right )    \mathbf{h}_{1\rightarrow 8,i}=\sum_{i=1}^{n_r}\mathbf{h}_{1\rightarrow 8,i}^h\frac{1}{2}\left (    \mathbf{i}_2 \otimes \mathbf{a}_4 ^ 1    \right )    \mathbf{h}_{1\rightarrow 8,i}\label{eq : eigvalnt4kronprod }     \end{aligned}\ ] ] @xmath280\left[% \begin{array}{cc }    \mathbf{a}_4 ^ 1 & \mathbf{0 } \\
\mathbf{0 } & \mathbf{a}_4 ^ 1 \\
\end{array}% \right]\left[% \begin{array}{c }    \mathbf{h}_{1\rightarrow 4,i } \\
\mathbf{h}_{5\rightarrow 8,i } \\
4,i}^h\mathbf{a}_4 ^ 1\mathbf{h}_{1\rightarrow 4,i}+\frac{1}{2}\mathbf{h}_{5\rightarrow 8,i}^h\mathbf{a}_4 ^ 1\mathbf{h}_{5\rightarrow 8,i}\label{eq : eigvalnt4fromnt8}\end{aligned}\ ] ] in an analogous manner , we get @xmath275 given as @xmath281\left[% \begin{array}{cc }     \mathbf{0 } & i\mathbf{\theta}_k\mathbf{a}_4 ^ 1   \\
-i\mathbf{\theta}_k\mathbf{a}_4 ^ 1 & \mathbf{0 }   \\
\end{array}% \right]\left[% \begin{array}{c }    \mathbf{h}_{1\rightarrow 4,i } \\    \mathbf{h}_{5\rightarrow 8,i } \\ \end{array}% \right]\ ] ] since the eigenvalues @xmath282 and @xmath283 can be obtained very easily in a similar way , we omit the derivations here .    comparing  ( [ eq : eigvalnt4fromnt8 ] ) with  ( [ eq : eigvalnt4fromalpha ] )
shows that in order to get the eigenvalues of @xmath103 , the eigenvalues of @xmath53 have to be expanded by using the kronecker product of @xmath284 and @xmath285 , divided by @xmath286 in order to incorporate the channel entries @xmath287 as given in  ( [ eq : eigvalnt4kronprod ] ) .
actually , this can also be observed in the expansion from @xmath45 to @xmath53 by comparing  ( [ eq : eigenvalalam ] ) with the first addend in  ( [ eq : expansnt2tont4 ] ) .
now assume that the following hypothesis holds @xmath288\mathbf{h}_{1\rightarrow 2k , i}\label{eq : eigvalntsubtoh1toh2k}\;,\end{aligned}\ ] ] similarly @xmath289\mathbf{h}_{1\rightarrow 2k , i}\label{eq : eigvalnuntsubtoh1toh2k}\;,\end{aligned}\ ] ] then the following inductive step is true @xmath290\frac{1}{2}\left[% \begin{array}{cc }    \mathbf{a}_k^{j ' } & \mathbf{0 } \\
\mathbf{0 } & \mathbf{a}_k^{j ' } \\
\end{array}% \right]\left[% \begin{array}{c }    \mathbf{h}_{1\rightarrow k , i } \\
\mathbf{h}_{k+1\rightarrow 2k , i } \\
\end{array}% \right]\\ \phantom{= } & \mp [ \mathbf{h}_{1\rightarrow k , i}^h \mathbf{h}_{k+1\rightarrow 2k , i}^h]\frac{1}{2}\left[% \begin{array}{cc }    \mathbf{0 } & i\theta_k\mathbf{a}_k^{j ' } \\    -i\theta_k\mathbf{a}_k^{j ' } & \mathbf{0 } \\
\end{array}% \right]\left[% \begin{array}{c }    \mathbf{h}_{1\rightarrow k , i } \\
\mathbf{h}_{k+1\rightarrow 2k , i }
\\ \end{array}% \right]\nonumber\end{aligned}\ ] ] @xmath291\frac{1}{2}\left[% \begin{array}{cc }    \mathbf{a}_k^{j ' } & \mp i\theta_k\mathbf{a}_k^{j ' } \\    \pm i\theta_k\mathbf{a}_k^{j ' } & \mathbf{a}_k^{j ' } \\ \end{array}% \right]\left[% \begin{array}{c }    \mathbf{h}_{1\rightarrow k , i } \\
\mathbf{h}_{k+1\rightarrow 2k , i } \\ \end{array}% \right ] \nonumber\end{aligned}\ ] ] @xmath292\mathbf{h}_{1\rightarrow 2k , i}\;,\end{aligned}\ ] ] with @xmath293 and @xmath167 . that concludes the proof
with  [ eq : def_matrizenant ] , @xmath294 and @xmath295 , @xmath296 and @xmath167 are given as @xmath297\;.\ ] ] thus , @xmath298 are only hermitian , if @xmath299 is hermitian .
since @xmath300 is hermitian , it follows that @xmath162 , @xmath0,@xmath296 are hermitian .
similarly , @xmath301\;.\ ] ] thus , @xmath298 are only idempotent , if @xmath299 is idempotent .
since @xmath300 is idempotent , it follows that @xmath162 , @xmath0,@xmath296 are idempotent . that concludes the proof .
we first prove the independency of the eigenvalues .
since the matrices @xmath302 are hermitian and idempotent , we are able to rewrite  ( [ eq : eigenval_sum ] ) as @xmath303 independency between the eigenvalues in the gaussian case is given if and only if the eigenvalues are uncorrelated , i.e. @xmath304=0\ ; \text {     $ \forall j , j\neq      k$}\ ; , \nonumber\ ] ] which is fulfilled if @xmath305 by applying the eigenvalue decomposition to ( [ eq : unabh_eigenwerte ] ) , one has to distinguish between the case , where the eigenvalues are given as @xmath306 and @xmath307 with @xmath167 , @xmath308 and @xmath309 .
note that the entries on the @xmath310th - diagonals of the matrices @xmath311 , where @xmath312 ( @xmath142 represents the main diagonal , @xmath313 above the main diagonal , and @xmath314 below the main diagonal ) , are equal to zero .
due to the special structure of the matrices @xmath311 , it follows that @xmath315 is orthogonal to @xmath316 and @xmath315 is orthogonal to @xmath317 , with @xmath318 .
thus , the eigenvalues in ( [ eq : eigenvaluesi ] ) and ( [ eq : eigenvaluesii ] ) are zero and therefore the eigenvalues in ( [ eq : eigenval_sum ] ) are independent
.    the probability density function ( pdf ) of the eigenvalues @xmath319 can be obtained from ( [ eq : eigenval_sum ] ) as follows .
the rank @xmath320 of @xmath321 is @xmath322 .
furthermore , @xmath323 \nonumber\\ & = & \mathrm{rk}((\mathbf{i}+\mathbf{\theta}_{n_t})\mathbf{a}_{2^{n-1}}^{j'})+\mathrm{rk}((\mathbf{i}-\mathbf{\theta}_{n_t})\mathbf{a}_{2^{n-1}}^{j ' } ) = \mathrm{rk}(\mathbf{a}_{2^{n-1}}^{j'})\ ; , \nonumber\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath58 contains the eigenvectors of @xmath324 . since @xmath325 ,
the matrices @xmath326 have all rank @xmath322 , and thus the following holds @xmath327\;,\ ] ] where @xmath59 is a unitary matrix . with ( [ eq : svd_a_idem ] ) , the pdfs are given as @xmath328\right )       = p\left(\mathrm{tr}\left[\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n_r}\mathbf{\bar{h}}_i^h\left[% \begin{array}{cc }    \mathbf{i}_2 & \mathbf{0 } \\
\mathbf{0 } & \mathbf{0 } \\ \end{array}% \right]\mathbf{\bar{h}}_i\right]\right)\;,\nonumber\end{aligned}\ ] ] which is the sum of squares of @xmath329 independent complex normal distributed variables , i.e. a noncentral chi - square distribution with @xmath2 degrees of freedom . that concludes the proof .
the inequality ( [ eq : mutualinfoupperbound ] ) is tight only , if the ratio of two eigenvalues , i.e. @xmath330 , for all @xmath331 . from this
it follows that it has to be shown that the following holds @xmath332 since the eigenvalues are chi - square distributed with each @xmath2 degrees of freedom , the ratio of the eigenvalues is distributed as follows @xmath333 which is the well - known f distribution  ( * ? ? ?
* , eq.9.9.35 ) .
therefore , when @xmath1 goes infinity , the f distribution is given as @xmath334 where @xmath335 is the delta distribution .
it follows that the lower bound gets tight for increasing @xmath1 .
the lower bound is also tight for low snr values , which is obvious after rewriting ( [ eq : mutualinfoqstbcdet ] ) as follows @xmath336 furthermore , @xmath337 for small snr . as an example , @xmath338 for @xmath53 .
therefore , as the snr gets smaller , the lower bound gets tighter .
that concludes the proof .