I'm trying to soft decode DQPSK. According to this paper the bits are:

$b_1 = \mathrm{Re}\{s_n s^*_{n-1}\}, b_2 = \mathrm{Im}\{s_n s^*_{n-1}\}$

If I put 0.707 as a 100% probability of 0:

$\begin{eqnarray} s_n=(0.707 + 0.707i) \nonumber \\ s_{n-1}=(0.707 + 0.707i) \nonumber \end{eqnarray}$

This gives:

$\begin{eqnarray} b_1=0.707 * 0.707 - (0.707 * -0.707)=0.999 \nonumber \\ b_2=0.707 * -0.707 + 0.707 * 0.707 = 0.0 \nonumber \end{eqnarray}$

And the result doesn't make sense:

  1. The real part (0.999) is fine. Original data corresponds to 100% probability of 0 and real part now from -0.999 to 0.999.
  2. The imag part (0.000) is weird. It can span from -0.999 to 0.999. Being 0.000 means bit 0 has 50% probability. Which is wrong, because original $s_n$ and $s_{n-1}$ correspond to 100% probability.

So it looks like the result constellation is no longer the same as original DQPSK: (0,0) bits now mapped to (1,0) point.

Questions are:

  1. Am I right in assumptions?
  2. How can I get soft symbols from the result constellation?

1 Answer 1


The paper actually deals with $\pi/4$-QPSK, not with plain DQPSK. In $\pi/4$-QPSK, the symbols are always rotated by a minimum of $\pm \pi/4$. Rappaport's Wireless Communications textbook has this table:

\begin{align*} 11 \rightarrow & \, \pi/4 \\ 01 \rightarrow & \, 3\pi/4 \\ 00 \rightarrow & \, -3\pi/4 \\ 10 \rightarrow & \, -\pi/4 \end{align*}

Unfortunately, the paper you point to does not specify what mapping it's using; the only clue is equation (2), where we see that the rotations are $n\pi/4$ for $n=1,3,5,7$.

Let's assume that $\text{00} \rightarrow 7\pi/4$. Then, in your case you would have $s_{n-1} = \sqrt{2}/2 + i\sqrt{2}/2$, and $s_n = e^{i7\pi/4}s_{n-1} = 1$. Then, according to the paper,

\begin{align*} b_1 = & \text{Re}(s_n s_{n-1}^*) = \sqrt{2}/2 \\ b_2 = & \text{Im}(s_n s_{n-1}^*) = \sqrt{2}/2 \end{align*}

I worked out $\text{00} \rightarrow 7\pi/4$ as the only rotation that produces results that make sense. However, it's not often that I see a paper with so many typos and so poorly typeset, and I wouldn't trust it without working out the details by myself first.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.