PAR Reduction in Multicarrier Transmission Systems

Information Systems Laboratory, Durand 112, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-9510 Phone: (650) 723-2525 Fax: (650) 723-8473 e-mail: jtellado@isl.stanford.edu

Jose Tellado and John M. Cio

February 9, 1998

This contribution, which is based on 1], proposes a new family of methods to reduce Peak to Average power Ratio (PAR) in Discrete MultiTone (DMT) and Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM) systems. This new family of algorithms can be applied with di erent levels of complexity and performance depending on our application constraints. Using the low complexity algorithms in our family, we can achieve 3dB of PAR reduction with 2N multiply/adds per DMT symbol and a data rate loss of less than :2%, or achieve 4dB of PAR reduction with 6N multiply/adds per symbol and a data rate loss of less than 1%. At higher complexity, 6 ? 10dB of PAR reduction can be achieved for NlogN complexity per symbol.

Abstract

Tellado, J. and Cio , J.M.{PAR Reduction:

1 Introduction
The high peak-to-average ratio of 15 dB in the Issue 1 and Issue 2 T1.413 ADSL standard DMT transmission technology has led to signi cant contributions on a variety of creative methods to reduce PAR 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15]. This contribution (based on some of the Stanford Ph. D. dissertation results of J. Tellado) formulates and studies the PAR minimization problem for DMT and OFDM transmission in Section 2. Section 3 shows that the resultant formulation can be minimized by linear programming techniques and leads to large reduction in PAR (as much as 10 dB in realistic situations) depending on the complexity of implementation that can be tolerated. Some e cient methods, requiring only order N operations per DMT/OFDM symbol, also readily achieve 3-4 dB reduction in PAR with minimal rate loss, as in Section 4. The authors would like to note some excellent simultaneous work by A. Gatherer and M. Polley of TI, where they independently derive one of the e cient methods 4] in Section 4 as noted there also. The methods of Sections 3 and 4 here, however, show signi cant additional improvement to that particular method, most notably by optimizing the peak reduction subspace, and a more careful design of the peak reduction kernel. This method was originally conceived in the study of wireless continuous-phase modulation methods where the issue of PAR is fundamentally crucial to the application of multicarrier transmission on the phase channel, and subsequently realized as directly applicable also to DSLs.

2 Problem Formulation
In all the following, baseband DMT/OFDM will be assumed, but all these results can be generalized to passband DMT/OFDM. The IFFT modulator operation:
N ?1 X j 2 kn=N Xe (1) xn = p1 N k=0 k can be written as x = QX, where Q is the IFFT matrix with elements qn;k = p1N ej 2 kn=N . Assuming N is even, for xn to be a real sequence, Xk must verify Xk = XN ?k+1 and X0 and XN=2 must be real. Similar constraints are necessary for N odd. By adding a vector C = C0 CN ?1 ]T to X, we get

(2) where c = QC. Since c must be real also, C must satisfy the same symmetry properties as X, i.e. Ck = CN ?k+1 and C0 and CN=2 must be real. We would like to choose C such that we meet the following targets: 1. We can decode X e ciently from X + C without degrading the performance of our modem.

x + c = Q(X + C)

Tellado, J. and Cio , J.M.{PAR Reduction:

2. We can decrease the Peak to Average power Ratio (PAR), i.e. kxk2 c 2 (3) PAR(c? ) = minckkx 2+=Nk1 < E kxk21=N : E xk2 ] 2] where c? is the optimal solution c? = arg minc kx + ck2 , and kvk1 and kvk2 refer to the 1 1-norm and 2-norm respectively of vector v. 3. We can compute c e ciently. 4. Optional: We can also ask for constraints on the total transmit power, e.g., kX + Ck2 < 2 Max Symbol Power, or on the individual carriers, e.g., kX + Ck2 < Max Tone Power. 1

3 Designing fc Cg
;

From now on, we will focus on a simple special case of Eq. (2) and will show that it meets all the targets speci ed in Section 2. First, we will constrain C such that it has nonzero values over an ordered subset fi1 ; : : : ; iL g, where L << N , i.e.: ( k2f g Ck = C;k ; k 62 fii1;;::::::;;iiLg (4) 0
1

Since c must be real-valued, the indices must satisfy ik = N ? iL?k + 1 for ik 62 f0; N=2g. Second, we will set to zero the values of Xk ; k 2 fi1 ; : : : ; iL g, so that the sets of nonzero values for X and C are mutually exclusive. The L nonzero values in C will be called Peak Reduction Tones (PRT). By setting L values of Xk to zero, we cannot send information in those L tones. Therefore, the Tone Rate Loss(TRL) would be L=N . On the other hand, the Data Rate Loss(DRL) would be PL b k (5) Data Rate Loss = PN=11 ik ?
k=0 bk

where bk is the number of bits transmitted in tone k. In many applications, the N tones in our DMT symbol do not have equal SNRk and the values of bk can be very di erent from tone to tone. By choosing the set fi1 ; : : : ; iL g such that the values of bik are small, we can get Data Rate Loss << Tone Rate Loss. In particular, if bik = 0, then there would be no data rate loss on that tone. For applications where bk = const, e.g. OFDM, we will have to minimize L to reduce the DRL. With this choice of X and C, the demodulator is very simple. If we add the cyclic pre x to the sum x + c, we get at the output of the receiver FFT : ( HC (6) FFT (h ? (x + c)) = Hk (Xk + Ck ) = H kXk ;; k 2 fii1 ;; :: :: :: ;; iiL g k 62 f g
1 L k k where h is the overall channel impulse response, Hk = FFT (h), and ? indicates circular convolution.

Tellado, J. and Cio , J.M.{PAR Reduction:

^ ^ ^ If we call C the nonzero values of C, i.e. C = Ci1 CiL ]T , and Q = qi1 j jqiL ] the submatrix ^^ of Q constructed by choosing its columns fi1 ; : : : ; iL g, then c = QC = QC. To compute the value ? that minimizes the maximum peak value, we must solve: of c This optimization problem is convex in the variables Cik and can be easily cast as a Linear Program (LP) as shown in the Appendix. Convex optimization problems and in particular Linear Programs have been studied extensively. In addition to having a unique solution, their convergence properties are well known and many algorithms provide lower bounds on the solution at every iteration 16]. As ^ ^ shown in the appendix, this LP has 2L + 1 unknowns fReal(C); Imag(C); tg and 2N inequalities. 2 For a general LP of this size, the complexity would be O(LN ). In our case, we have a very structured LP as Q is the IFFT matrix. Therefore, using this structure we can solve this LP with complexity O(NlogN) 17]. These complexity counts are necessary if we desire to solve Eq. (7) exactly using general purpose algorithms. As we will explain in Section 4, we can use ad hoc algorithms with complexity O(N ) that give good approximations to Eq. (7). Fig. 1 shows the distribution of the Peak to Average power Ratio (PAR) for both the original DMT symbols x, and the peak-optimized DMT symbols x + c? , where c? is obtained by solving (7). In most applications, we are interested in the clipping probability, i.e. the probability that our symbol exceeds a given PAR threshold, PAR0 . Therefore the preferred statistic is the complementary cumulative distribution function (1-CDF). Thus, all gures plot Prob(PARi > PAR0 ) on the vertical axis for di erent values of PAR0 on the horizontal axis. For example, in Fig. 1 if our symbols follow the continuous line, and our transmitter can only tolerate PAR0 = 12dB , then 3% of the transmitted symbols would be clipped, i.e. ProbfPARi > 12dB g = :03. The PAR of the i-th symbol xi , is de ned as: where E ] denotes expectation. The PAR of the peak-optimized symbol xi + c? is de ned as: i The solid line in Fig. 1 show the clipping probability curve when no clipping reduction is performed. The dashed-dotted line in Fig. 1 plots the clipping probability after peak-reduction when L=N = 5%. For this case, if we desire a clipping probability of less than 10?5 , we can reduce the PAR0 from 15dB to 9dB . Therefore the statistical PAR has been reduced by 6dB if we can only tolerate a clipping probability below 10?5 . The dashed line in Fig. 1 plots results for L=N = 20%. In this case, PAR decreases from 15dB to 5dB for a clipping probability below 10?5 .
i + k1 PAR(xi + c? ) = kxkx kci]=N i E 2 ?
2

^^ min kx + ck1 = min kx + QCk1 c ^

C

(7)

kx k PAR(xi ) = E kx ik21=N ]
2

(8) (9)

Tellado, J. and Cio , J.M.{PAR Reduction:

On the other hand, the transmit power increases when we add c? to xi . We de ne the mean i power increase E due to peak-optimization as: i + c? 2 (10) E = E kxkx k2i]k2 ] ? 1 E i2 For L=N = 5%, the mean power increase is E = :27(1dB ) and for L=N = 20% it is E = :12(0:5dB ). These results show that the proposed method can signi cantly reduce the PAR by solving (7) exactly with small increases of the transmit power. As we will show in the following sections, we can get most of this gain from low complexity iterative methods after a small number of iterations. Moreover, for these simpli ed solutions the power increase is less signi cant.
10
0

10

Clipping Rate, Prob{PARi>PARo}

10

10

Original PAR Opt. PAR 5% Opt. PAR 20%

10

10

10

6 8 10 Peak Average Power Ratio, PARo (dB)

12

14

16

Figure 1: Probability that the PAR of a randomly generated 256-carrier baseband DMT/OFDM L L symbol exceeds PAP0 for N = 5% and N = 20% with Randomly-Optimized set fi? g k

4 Fast approximation to

Fortunately, we can get good approximate solutions to Eq. (7) with complexity O(N ) with the following argument. In Eq. (7), c is optimized to cancel the peaks of the vector x. If we call xclip

Tellado, J. and Cio , J.M.{PAR Reduction:

P the clipped version of x for some given clipping level T , then xP xclip = i i n ? mi ], where i ? are the clip values and mi the clip locations. If we set c = ? i i n ? mi ], then x + c = xclip and we would have reduced the transmit symbol peaks to the interval (?T; T ). Therefore, c can be thought of as a sum of delayed impulses scaled appropriately to cancel the peaks of x. In general, ^ for this choice of c, C = FFT (c) would be nonzero over most frequencies and the TRL would be unacceptable. On the other hand, we can try to approximate n] for a pulse p n] n] to get X X cappr = ? (11) i p ((n ? mi ))N ] ? i n ? mi ]
where p ((n ? mi ))N ] refers to the circular shift of p by mi . For this scheme to work, the peakreduction-pulse p = p n] = p0 p1 pN ?1 ], should be as close as possible to the ideal impulse n]. Therefore, we need p0 = 1 and p1 p2 pN ?1 ] as small as possible. On the other hand, we want ^ C = FFT (cappr ) to be zero at most frequencies to minimize the TRL (actually, we are interested on minimizing the DRL{more on this later). Let's assume P = FFT (p) has only L nonzero values. Then, using the linearity of the FFT operator and the shift property, we have: and:
i i

?! p ((n ? m))N ] FFT Pk e?j(2

X
i i p ((n ? mi ))N ]

k=N )m ; FFT ?!

n; k = 0 : N ? 1; 8m:
i Pk e?j (2 k=N )mi

(12) (13)

P Therefore, Since P has only L nonzero values so will i P p ((n ? m )) ], C = FFT (c) will have only L nonzero values. if c can be expressed as ^ c=? i i i N Our next step is to compute the values i and mi . Attempting to optimize all i and mi values simultaneously would lead to an LP. Instead, we can iteratively compute c as a linear combination of the circularly shifted p. This procedure leads to the following algorithm:
Initialization: Compute the kernel vector p. In Subsection 4.1, we will describe several methods to compute p. For each DMT symbol: { 1. Set c(0) = 0 0]T = 0N { 2. Find the value and location of maxk jxk + c(i?1) j. If the maximum is below our target, k transmit x + c(i?1) , otherwise continue. { 3. Update the c according to c(i) = c(i?1) ? i p ((n ? mi ))N ], where mi is the location of the peak and i is a linear function of the value at the maximum and the target clipping level. Return to 2.

i i Pk e?j (2 k=N )mi .

Tellado, J. and Cio , J.M.{PAR Reduction:

P After j iterations of this algorithm, we would get x + c(j ) = x ? j=1 i p ((n ? mi ))N ]. i The complexity of the algorithm is O(N). At each iteration, we must nd the maximum of x+c(i) , scale p ((n ? mi ))N ] by i and add them together. Therefore, we must do N real multiply/adds per iteration. Since p is xed, we can precompute and store k p for several values of k . This way, we can reduce the complexity to nding the maximum and N real additions per iteration.
As described in the iterative algorithm in the previous section, the same p is used at each iteration for all symbols. Since p only needs to be calculated once, we can put more e ort on the optimization of p. Ideally, we would like p to be a discrete-time impulse, i.e. p = 1 0 0]T = e0 . This way, every time we cancel a peak of x, we would not distort other samples in x which could create secondary peaks at other locations. The problem with this choice of p is that P will have L = N nonzero values and thus TRL = DRL = 1. Therefore, we should design p to be as close as possible to e0 and still satisfy DRL << 1. There are several solutions to p depending on the cost function we choose for computing the similarity between p and e0 , d(p; e0 ). The most natural and tractable solutions are those where d(; ) is an l-norm, i.e. d(x; y) = kx ? ykl . The case l = 2 is the Mean Square Error solution which has a simple closed form. The cases l = 1 and l = 1 can be solved with LP 16]. ^ ^ ^ If we call P the nonzero values of P, i.e. P = Pi1 PiL ]T , and Q = qi1 j jqiL ] the corre^ P is using the MSE criterion, i.e. ^ sponding columns of Q, a simple way to choose p = Q ^^ ^2 P?b = arg min kQP ? e0 k2 ; The solution for this case is simply: ^ ^2 p?b = QP?b 2
^ P

4.1 Computing p

(14) (15)

^ ^ ^ ^ ^2 P?b = (QT Q)?1 QT e0 = QT e0 =

p?b = 2

p1 1 1]T = p1
N

^ p1 Q1L

1L

(16) (17)

L ^2 From Eq. (17), we can see that the MSE solution p?b ; P?b is biased, since p0 = N < 1. Since we 2 are interested in getting p0 = 1, we simply scale them to get

N1 L L p ? = N Q1 ^ p2 L L
^2 P? =

(18) (19)

Tellado, J. and Cio , J.M.{PAR Reduction:

It is straightforward to compute p? . By solving Eq. (19) directly, the complexity is NL multi2 ply/adds. But Eq. (19) can also be computed using an N point FFT with only L inputs. We can also choose to minimize the worst case secondary peak of p, which leads to an 1? norm constraint (l = 1), i.e.:
^1 P? = arg min k p1
^ P

p2

pN ?1 ]k1 ; subj: to p0 = 1;

(20)

(21) The solution to this problem is a LP. This method usually produces better results than Eq. (19) but is also harder to compute. As can be seen from Eq. (15) and Eq. (21), p? and p? only depend on fi1 ; : : : ; iL g. Therefore, 1 2 they only need to be computed if we change the peak reduction tone locations fi1 ; : : : ; iL g. If the set fi1 ; : : : ; iL g is known a priori, the complexity involved in computing p is not important since we can carefully design p o line.

p? = QP? 1 ^ ^1

4.2 Choosing f

i1 ; : : : ; i

Subsection 4.1 describes several methods to compute p? when the index set fi1 ; : : : ; iL g is known. We can now study the behavior of kp? ? e0 k as we change fi1 ; : : : ; iL g. A natural choice would be to select fi1 ; : : : ; iL g such that we minimize the secondary peaks in p? : ^^ fi? ; : : : ; i? g = arg min k p? p? p? ?1]k1; p? = QP? (22) 1 L 1 2 N where p? is either p? , the solution to (19), or p? the solution to (21) for a given index choice 1 2 fi1 ; : : : ; iL g Optimizing this problem exactly is NP-hard, since we must optimize over the discrete set fi1 ; : : : ; iL g, but we could get good results by generating random sets fi1 ; : : : ; iL g and selecting the best. This method for tone selection will be called random set optimization. The e ect of a good choice of fi1 ; : : : ; iL g can be seen in Fig. 2. The dashed line plots the optimized PAR for the choice fik g = f244; 245; : : : 256g (contiguous tones). A similar result was obtained for the choice fik g = f11; 31; : : : 251g (equally spaced tones). For these choices of fik g, we can reduce the 10?5 clipping rate threshold from PAR0 = 15dB to PAR0 = 11:6dB , that is a reduction of 3:4dB . An additional gain can be obtained using the random set optimization method as shown by the soliddiamond line. For this choice we can reduce the 10?5 clipping rate threshold from PAR0 = 15dB to PAR0 = 8:8dB , which is a reduction of 6:2dB . In real applications, we would also like to minimize the DRL for a given L, i.e.: PL k (23) Min Data Rate Loss(L) = fi min g PN=11bik ? ;:::;i
fi1 ;:::;iL g

Lg

1 L k=0 bk b? ; : : : ; ib? g, is simply to choose the L tones with lowest SNRk . The solution, which we denote fi1 L

In that case, we have two possibly con icting requirements of maximizing data rate and minimizing

Tellado, J. and Cio , J.M.{PAR Reduction:

10

10

Original PAR Adj. Index Rand Set Optim.

Clipping Rate, Prob{PARi>PARo}

10

10

10

10

10

9 10 11 12 13 Peak Average Power Ratio, PARo (dB)

14

15

16

Figure 2: Probability that the PAR of a randomly generated 256-carrier baseband DMT/OFDM symL bol exceeds PAP0 for N = 5% for two index choices, Contiguous tones, fik g = f244; 245; : : : 256g and randomly optimized set fi? g k

PAR. In this case, the recommended procedure would be to start with the set fib? ; : : : ; ib? g that 1 L maximizes data rate. If k p?? p? ?p? ?1 ]k1 associated to this choice is unacceptable, we would x 1 2 N a subset fj1 ; : : : ; jl g fib ; : : : ; ib g and optimize the remaining L ? l indexes solving Eq. (22). 1 L Once the set fik g has been chosen, we will not modify these locations unless the variation in tone SNR would produce an unacceptable increase in DRL to justify a reallocation.
A. Gatherer and M. Polley of TI 4], independently derived a peak reduction algorithm based on adding a vector b = IFFT (B) to the transmitted symbol x = IFFT (X). To simplify the decoding algorithms and minimize the DRL, they propose that B should be restricted to the set of L tones that carry no data because of insu cient SNR, i.e. the L frequencies where bik = 0. Usually these tones will be located on the top portion of the available bandwidth. They solve for fb; Bg by clipping x in the time domain and projecting the clip energy onto the unused L tones. Using the linearity of the FFT, they derived an O(N) algorithm which is similar to the algorithm

4.3 Relationship to 4]

Tellado, J. and Cio , J.M.{PAR Reduction:

2

10

Signi cant additional improvement to that particular method was obtained in this paper by choosing a better set fik g, which leads to a more e cient peak reduction subspace. The importance of choosing fik g correctly can be seen in Fig. 2 which plots the maximum improvement we can get from these methods. Moreover, a good design of the peak reduction kernel p leads to improved convergence speed for the heuristic algorithms as can be seen by comparing Fig. 3 and Fig. 4. That is explained in detail in Section 5.

described in Section 4 with the restriction, fik g = fk j bk = 0g which has no data rate loss (usually fik g = fN ? L; N ? L + 1; : : : N ? 1g) and with p = p?.

5 Results
Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 plot the reduction in PAR by applying the low complexity, iterative algorithm described in Section 4. Both gures share the same TRL, L=N = 5% and both gures optimize the peak reduction kernel using the 2-norm criteria. Fig. 3 was generated with index set fik g = f244; 245; : : : 256g. The index set for Fig. 4 was optimized fi? ; : : : ; i? g using the random set 1 L optimization procedure in Subsection 4.2. In both gures, the rightmost curve plots the original PAR distribution. The second starting from the right is PAR(x + c(1) ), i.e., after applying a single iteration. The third starting from the right is the PAR(x + c(2) ), i.e., after applying two iterations and so forth. Each iteration involves nding the maximum of x + c(i) and N real valued multiply/adds. From Fig. 3 and a desired clipping probability of 10?6 , we get about 0:4dB PAR reduction for one iteration, :8dB for two iterations, and 2dB after 6 iterations. As can be seen by comparing Fig. 3 and Fig. 4, the PAR reduction per iteration is larger for the randomly optimized set. For a desired clipping probability of 10?7 , we get about 2dB PAR reduction for one iteration, 3dB for two iterations, and 4:5dB after 6 iterations. As was mentioned in Section 3, there is a transmit power increase, E when we add c to the original symbol x. For the iterative methods, E (i) denotes the average power increment after i iterations. For the cases in Fig. 3 and Fig. 4, after 10 iterations, E (10) = :03 (0:13dB ). This value is smaller than its counterparts in Section 3, where c? was computed exactly. For channels with very di erent values for fbk g we can get an very low DRL << TRL << 1. On the other hand, if the fbk g values are very similar, the DRL TRL will no longer be negligible. If our application can accommodate variable rate transmission, we can choose to use the set fi? ; : : : ; i? g for peak reduction purposes only if the PARi is above some desired value, 1 L otherwise, we can use these tones for data transmission. In this case: PL b k (24) DRL = ProbfPARi > PARdesiredg PN=11 ik ? If we assume bk = const (worst case), then DRL = TRL = For example, if our target is PARdesired < 12dB with a clipping probability of less than 10 , from Fig. 4, we see that we can achieve this by correcting only 3% of DMT symbols and with a maximum
k=0 bk L N ProbfPARi > PARdesired g. ?7

Tellado, J. and Cio , J.M.{PAR Reduction:

11

of 4 iterations of our algorithm. Therefore, with complexity 4N and a DRL = 5% 3% = :15%, we can achieve our goal. One drawback of this technique is that the data rate willP longer be no N? constant. The multicarrier symbols for which PARi P PARdesired will transmit k=01 bk bits, < PL b bits. If we must have a N? and the remaining multicarrier symbols will transmit k=01 bk ? k=1 ik L constant data rate and do not want to increase the latency, we must accept DRL TRL = N .
10
0

10

Clipping Rate, Prob{PAR>PAR }

10

10

10

10

10

10

Peak to Average Power Ratio, PAR (dB) o

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

L Figure 3: PAR(x + c(i) ) distribution for i = 1; : : : ; 10 and N = 5%. Contiguous tone set with fik g = f244; 245; : : : 256g

6 Conclusions
A new family of PAR reduction algorithms is proposed. These methods are based on adding a time domain signal to the original DMT symbol to reduce its peaks. This time domain signal can be well approximated with low complexity, O(N ), and can be easily stripped o the received signal. This new family of algorithms can be applied with di erent levels of complexity and performance depending on our application constraints.

Tellado, J. and Cio , J.M.{PAR Reduction:

10
0

12

10

40 iter Optim

Clipping Rate, Prob{PAR>PAR }

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

Peak to Average Power Ratio, PAR (dB) o

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

L Figure 4: PAR(x + c(i) ) distribution for i = 1; : : : ; 10; 40 and N = 5% with Randomly Optimized set fi? g k

Appendix
This appendix shows how to cast Eq. (7) as an LP. Since LP's are a special case of convex opti^ mization problems, we will have shown that Eq. (7) is convex on the variables C. First, Eq. (7) is equivalent to: min t ^
C

(25)

where qrow ^n follows:

t; n = 0 : N ? 1: (26) subject to : jxn + qrow Cj ^n ^ ^ is the n-th row of Q. We can rewrite these N scalar equations into vector form, as
min ^ C ^^ subject to : x + QC ^^ x + QC

t
N N

(27)

t1N ; ?t1N ;

(28) (29)

Tellado, J. and Cio , J.M.{PAR Reduction:

13

where 1N is a column vector with N ones and y N z indicates a vector inequality, i.e. yi zi ; 8i. Moving all unknowns to the left hand side: min ^
C

t
N N

(30)

^^ subject to : QC ? t1N ^^ QC + t1N

?x; ?x;
t
2

(31) (32) (33) (34)

^ Q N subject to : ?Q ? 11 ^ ? N

^ C

min ^ C !

?x
x

^ ^ This LP has 2L + 1 unknowns fReal(C); Imag(C); tg and 2N inequalities and has been written in the standard LP form:

min cT x (35) subject to : Ax N b (36) where x are the optimization variables. The matrix A, and the vectors b and c are known parameters.

References
1] J. Tellado, \Reducing PAR for multicarrier systems." ISL Student Seminar, Stanford University, Oct 1997. 2] S. Muller and J. Huber, \A comparison of peak power reduction schemes for OFDM," in Proc IEEE GlobeCom, vol. 1, (Phoenix, AZ), pp. 1{5, Nov 1997. 3] M. Friese, \OFDM signals with low crest-factor," in Proc IEEE GlobeCom, vol. 1, (Phoenix, AZ), pp. 290{294, Nov 1997. 4] A. Gatherer and M. Polley, \Controlling clipping probability in DMT transmission," in Proc. of 31st Asilomar Conf. on Signals, Systems, and Computers, (Paci c Grove, CA), Nov 1997. 5] S. Muller and J. Huber, \A novel peak power reduction scheme for OFDM," in Proc PIMRC, (XXX), Sep 1997.

Tellado, J. and Cio , J.M.{PAR Reduction:

14

6] D. Bruyssel and P. Reusens, \ADSL clip scaling not mature for issue 2," ANSI Document, T1E1.4 Technical Subcommittee, pp. 1{4, Sep 22 1997. 7] J. Cio , \The entropy of a clip," ANSI Document, T1E1.4 Technical Subcommittee, pp. 1{4, Sep 22 1997. 8] I. Djokovic, \Par reduction without noise enhancement," ANSI Document, T1E1.4 Technical Subcommittee, pp. 1{3, Sep 22 1997. 9] R. Verbin, \E cient algorithm for clip probability reduction," ANSI Document, T1E1.4 Technical Subcommittee, pp. 1{7, Sep 22 1997. 10] J. Chow, J. Bingham, and M.S.Flowers, \Mitigating clipping noise in multicarrier systems," in Proc IEEE Intl Conf Commun, (Montreal, Canada), pp. 715{719, Jun 1997. 11] S. Muller and J. Huber, \OFDM with reduced peak-to-average power ratio by optimum combination of partial transmit sequences," Electronics Letters, vol. 33, pp. 368{369, Feb 1997. 12] D. Mestdagh and P. Spruyt, \A method to reduce the probability of clipping in DMT-based transceivers," IEEE Trans Commun, vol. COM-44, pp. 1234{1238, Oct 1996. 13] M. Friese, \Multicarrier modulation with low peak-to-average power ratio," Electronics Letters, vol. 32, pp. 713{714, Apr 11 1996. 14] D. Wulich, \Reduction of peak to mean ratio of multicarrier modulation using cyclic coding," Electronics Letters, vol. 32, pp. 432{433, Feb 29 1996. 15] E. Jones, T. Wilkinson, and S. Barton, \Block coding scheme for reduction of peak to mean envelope power ratio of multicarrier transmission schemes," Electronics Letters, vol. 30, pp. 2098{ 2099, Dec 8 1994. 16] S. Boyd and L. Vandenberghe, \Lecture notes for introduction to convex optimization with engineering applications." Electrical Engineering Department, Stanford University, CA, 1997. 17] S. Boyd, L. Vandenberghe, and M. Grant, \E cient convex optimization for engineering design," in Proceedings IFAC Symposium on Robust Control Design, (Rio de Janeiro, Brazil), Sep 1994.