Closed-Form Expressions for I/O Relation in Zak-OTFS With Different Delay-Doppler Filters

The transceiver operations in the delay-Doppler (DD) domain in Zak-OTFS modulation, including DD domain filtering at the transmitter and receiver, involve twisted convolution operation. The twisted convolution operations give rise to multiple integrals in the end-to-end DD domain input-output (I/O) relation. The I/O relation plays a crucial role in performance evaluation and algorithm development for transceiver implementation. In this paper, we derive discrete DD domain closed-form expressions for the I/O relation and noise covariance in Zak-OTFS. We derive these expressions for sinc and Gaussian pulse shaping DD filters at the transmitter (Tx). On the receiver (Rx) side, three types of DD filters are considered, viz., <inline-formula xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><tex-math notation="LaTeX">$(i)$</tex-math></inline-formula> Rx filter identical to Tx filter (referred to as ‘identical filtering’), <inline-formula xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><tex-math notation="LaTeX">$(ii)$</tex-math></inline-formula> Rx filter matched to the Tx filter (referred to as ‘matched filtering’), and <inline-formula xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><tex-math notation="LaTeX">$(iii)$</tex-math></inline-formula> Rx filter matched to both Tx filter and channel response (referred to as ‘channel matched filtering’). For all the above cases, except for the case of sinc identical filtering, we derive exact I/O relation and noise covariance expressions in closed-form. For the sinc identical filtering case, we derive approximate closed-form expressions which are shown to be accurate. Using the derived closed-form expressions, we evaluate the bit error performance of Zak-OTFS for different Tx/Rx filter configurations. Our results using Vehicular-A (Veh-A) channel model with fractional DDs show that, while matched filtering achieves slightly better or almost same performance as identical filtering, channel matched filtering achieves the best performance among the three.