Exercise 1.16Z: Bounds for the Gaussian Error Function
The probability that a zero-mean Gaussian random variable n with standard deviation σ ⇒ variance σ2 is greater in magnitude than a given value A is equal to
- Pr(n>A)=Pr(n<−A)=Q(A/σ).
Here is used one of the most important functions for Communications Engineering (drawn in red in the diagram):
the "complementary Gaussian error function"
- Q(x)=1√2π∫+∞xe−u2/2du.
Q(x) is a monotonically decreasing function with Q(0)=0.5. For very large values of x ⇒ Q(x) tends →0.
The integral of the Q–function is not analytically solvable and is usually given in tabular form. From the literature, however, manageable approximations or bounds for positive x values are known:
- the "upper bound" ⇒ upper (German: "obere" ⇒ subscript: "o") blue curve in adjacent graph, valid for x>0:
- Qo(x)=1√2π⋅x⋅e−x2/2≥Q(x),
- the "lower bound" ⇒ upper (German: "untere" ⇒ subscript: "u") blue curve in adjacent graph, valid for x>1:
- Qu(x)=1−1/x2√2π⋅x⋅e−x2/2≤Q(x),
- the "Chernoff-Rubin bound" (green curve in the graph, drawn for K=1):
- QCR(x)=K⋅e−x2/2≥Q(x).
In the exercise it is to be investigated to what extent these bounds can be used as approximations for Q(x) and what corruptions result.
Hints:
- This exercise belongs to the chapter "Bounds for block error probability".
- Reference is also made to the chapter "Gaussian distributed random variables" in the book "Stochastic Signal Theory".
- The exercise provides some important hints for solving "Exercise 1.16", in which QCR(x) is used to derive the "Bhattacharyya Bound" for the AWGN channel.
- Further we refer to the interactive HTML5/JavaScript applet "Complementary Gaussian error functions".
Questions
Solution
- Qo(x)=1√2π⋅x⋅e−x2/2⇒Qo(4)=1√2π⋅4⋅e−8≈3.346⋅10−5_.
- The lower bound can be converted as follows:
- Qu(x)=(1−1/x2)⋅Qo(x)⇒Qu(4)≈3.137⋅10−5_.
- The relative deviations from the actual value {\rm Q}(4) = 3.167 · 10^{–5} are +5\% resp. –1\%.
(2) Correct are the solutions 1 and 2:
- For x = 2, the actual function value {\rm Q}(x) = 2.275 \cdot 10^{-2} is bounded by {\rm Q_{o}}(x) = 2.7 \cdot 10^{-2} and {\rm Q_u}(x) = 2.025 \cdot 10^{-2}, respectively.
- The relative deviations are therefore 18.7\% resp. -11\%,.
- The last statement is wrong: Only for x < 0.37 ⇒ {\rm Q_o}(x) > 1 is valid.
(3) For the quotient of {\rm Q}_{\rm CR}(x) and {\rm Q_o}(x), according to the given equations:
- q(x) = \frac{{\rm Q_{CR}}(x)}{{\rm Q_{o}}(x)} = \frac{{\rm exp}(-x^2/2)}{{\rm exp}(-x^2/2)/({\sqrt{2\pi} \cdot x})} = {\sqrt{2\pi} \cdot x}
- \Rightarrow \hspace{0.3cm} q(x) \approx 2.5 \cdot x \hspace{0.3cm} \Rightarrow \hspace{0.3cm} q(x =2) \hspace{0.15cm}\underline{=5}\hspace{0.05cm}, \hspace{0.2cm}q(x =4)\hspace{0.15cm}\underline{=10}\hspace{0.05cm}, \hspace{0.2cm}q(x =6) \hspace{0.15cm}\underline{=15}\hspace{0.05cm}.
- The larger the abscissa value x is, the more inaccurately {\rm Q}(x) is approximated by {\rm Q}_{\rm CR}(x).
- When looking at the graph in the information section, I first had the impression that {\rm Q}_{\rm CR}(x) results from {\rm Q}(x) by shifting to the right or shifting up.
- But this is only an optical illusion and does not correspond to the facts.
(4) With \underline{K = 0.5} the new bound 0.5 \cdot {\rm Q}_{\rm CR}(x) for x = 0 agrees exactly with {\rm Q}(x=0) = 0.500.
- For larger abscissa values, the falsification q \approx 1.25 \cdot x thus also becomes only half as large.