In M-RISIC, we modify RISIC by performing cyclicity removal (i.
In this part, the reliability of the RISIC and M-RISIC algorithms are analyzed according to the iteration procedure, which refers the steps of ICI iterative cancellation in RISIC-based algorithms.
The amount of the ISI for both RISIC and M-RISIC are same, and they are removed by the second terms in (7) and (8), respectively.
i,k], the RISIC uses the cyclicity restoration to save the desired power of the delayed path, while the M-RISIC subtracts the effect of the delay path.
In order to overcome the severe ISI problem, we modify the RISIC algorithm as shown in Fig.
Since the performances of RISIC and the proposed M-RISIC are related with the difference of (D - G), i.
We compare the link-level performances of the RISIC and M-RISIC algorithms, where both of them work associated with the perfect time-domain channel estimation.
6dB gain is achieved in the case of RISIC with the HDB at target BER of 10-2.
For further comparison on the RISIC and M-RISIC with various DS values, we fix Eb/N0 as 15 dB and observe the BER performance based on the different channel DS.