# On Code Design for Wireless Channels with Additive Radar Interference

## TL;DR

This paper explores code design and decoding strategies for wireless channels affected by radar interference, proposing methods that improve error rates without changing existing codes, by incorporating interference-aware decoding metrics.

## Contribution

It introduces an INR-based decoding metric and compares two code design approaches for handling non-Gaussian radar interference in wireless channels.

## Key findings

- Both proposed methodologies outperform the baseline in high INR regimes.
- Performance gains are minimal when codes are optimized for the non-Gaussian channel.
- Existing wireless codes can be used effectively with an INR-aware decoding metric.

## Abstract

This paper considers the problem of code design for a channel where communications and radar systems coexist, modeled as having both Additive White Gaussian Noise (AWGN) and Additive Radar Interference (ARI). The issue of how to adapt or re-design convolutional codes (decoded by the Viterbi algorithm) and LDPC codes (decoded by the sum-product algorithm and optimized by using the EXIT chart method) to effectively handle the overall non-Gaussian ARI noise is investigated. A decoding metric is derived from the non-Gaussian ARI channel transition probability as a function of the Signal-to-Noise Ratio (SNR) and Interference-to-Noise Ratio (INR). Two design methodologies are benchmarked against a baseline "unaltered legacy system", where a code designed for AWGN-only noise, but used on the non-Gaussian ARI channel, is decoded by using the AWGN-only metric (i.e., as if INR is zero). The methodologies are: M1) codes designed for AWGN-only noise, but decoded with the new metric that accounts for both SNR and INR; and M2) codes optimized for the overall non-Gaussian ARI channel. Both methodologies give better average Bit Error Rate (BER) in the high INR regime compared to the baseline. In the low INR regime, both methodologies perform as the baseline since in this case the radar interference is weak. Interestingly, the performance improvement of M2 over M1 is minimal. In practice, this implies that specifications in terms of channel error correcting codes for commercially available wireless systems need not be changed, and that it suffices to use an appropriate INR-based decoding metric in order to effectively cope with the ARI.