Reduced Complexity Data-Aided and Code-Aided Frequency Offset Estimation For Flat-Fading MIMO Channels
Reduced Complexity Data-Aided and Code-Aided Frequency Offset Estimation For Flat-Fading MIMO Channels
Reduced Complexity Data-Aided and Code-Aided Frequency Offset Estimation For Flat-Fading MIMO Channels
6, JUNE 2006
Abstract— This contribution deals with carrier frequency off- In [9], [10] data-aided joint ML estimation of frequency off-
set estimation for flat-fading Multiple-Input Multiple-Output set and channel gains for MIMO systems has been addressed.
(MIMO) channels. Both data-aided (using training symbols) Also an ad-hoc estimator has been proposed to synchronize
and iterative code-aided (using the unknown coded symbols)
estimation is considered. In both scenarios, maximum-likelihood the signals from the different transmit antennas separately in
(ML) frequency offset estimation involves solving a maximization [9]. In contrast to [9], the estimator proposed in the present
problem with no closed-form solution. Since numerical calcula- contribution is an ML approximation, combining information
tion of the ML estimates is computationally hard, we derive from all transmit antennas. Consequently, full diversity is
a simple closed-form approximation. Simulation results indicate exploited and the number of pilot symbols can be reduced
that the ML algorithm and the proposed reduced-complexity
algorithm operate closely to the Cramer-Rao bound (CRB). as compared to [9].
To achieve accurate synchronization without resorting to a
Index Terms— Frequency offset estimation, synchronization, large amount of pilot symbols, the frequency offset estimation
MIMO channels.
algorithm should also make use of the data portion of the
frame containing the information-bearing symbols. Recently,
I. I NTRODUCTION a great effort is being devoted to develop efficient code-aided
(CA) estimation techniques using soft information from the
the different antennas are identical. In many communication Hence, the ML estimate maximizes the magnitude of the
systems, this is a valid assumption. Further, estimation and Fourier transform (FT) of {y(k)}. For high signal-to-noise
compensation of the mean Doppler shift, allows us to assume ratio (SNR), the mean-square error (MSE) of this estimate
the channel to be quasi static as long as the block duration closely approaches the Cramer-Rao bound (CRB), which is a
is smaller than the inverse of the remaining Doppler spread. theoretical lower bound on the MSE. Unfortunately, a simple
Sampling at symbol-rate, we can model the observation as closed-form solution to the problem of maximizing (2) does
not exist. The exact determination of the ML estimate from
yk = Hak ej2πF kT + wk k = 0...L − 1 (1) (2) would require a time consuming search over a large set
where yk = [ykn ]Tn=1...NR is a NR ×1 vector of received signal of frequency values, making ML estimation computationally
samples, H = [hnm ]n=1...NR ,m=1...NT denotes the NR × NT hard. To overcome this problem, we derive a sub-optimal
channel matrix, ak = [a m T closed-form frequency estimator.
k ]m=1...NT is a NT × 1 vector of 2) Computationally efficient estimation: Replacing in (2)
2
symbols with E |am k | = Es , F is the carrier frequency the magnitude of the FT by its squared magnitude does
offset, 1/T is the symbol rate per transmit antenna, and wk not affect the value of the ML estimate. Rearranging the
is a NR × 1 noise vector. The components of the noise vector squared magnitude yields the following maximum likelihood
wk are statistically independent and complex-valued, with expression:
independent Gaussian zero-mean real and imaginary parts, L−1
each having a variance of N0 /2; also, noise vectors at different
−j2π F̃ mT
F̂ML;F = arg max Re RDA;F (m)e (4)
instants of time are statistically independent. The components F̃ m=1
hmn of the channel matrix are statistically independent and
complex-valued, with independent Gaussian zero-mean real where the time-correlation RDA;F (m) is defined as
A. Frequency offset estimation with known channel Setting the derivative (with respect to F) of the function to be
maximized in (4) equal to zero, the ML-estimate satisfies the
In this section, we consider data-aided frequency offset following equation:
estimation assuming the channel matrix H to be known. This L−1
is not a realistic scenario, but it will turn out that the resulting
−j2πmF̂ T
algorithm is useful in the context of code-aided iterative joint Im mRDA;F (m)e = 0. (7)
estimation of the frequency offset and the channel matrix, to m=1
where
L−1
m |RDA;F (m)| arg(RDA;F (m)) − 2πmF̂ T = 0.
y (k) = aH H
k H yk (3)
m=1
1 Itis not a realistic scenario to have complete phase information but no Grouping terms appropriately and limiting the summation
frequency offset information. interval to [1, M ], with M ≤ L − 1, to reduce complexity
1560 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS, VOL. 5, NO. 6, JUNE 2006
−3
10
Fitz (9), (11) and (12), with the CRB. The system parameters
are L = 20 and M = P = Q = L/2. We used random
Luise
DA;F
ML;F
CRB training symbols, although the performance of the different
10
−4 estimators is essentially independent of the training sequence.
We observe that the ML algorithm (2), the Fitz algorithm
(12) and the new algorithm (9) operate closely to the CRB
N =1
at moderate and large SNR, whereas the L&R algorithm (11)
MSEF
−5
10 R
suffers from a MSE floor. This MSE floor can be explained by
noticing that the derivation [7] of the L&R algorithm assumes
NR=2 A(m) in (6) to be constant; as this assumption is in general
10
−6
violated for MIMO (but not for SISO), the MIMO version
of the L&R algorithm gives rise to estimation errors in the
absence of noise. Further, we observe that the new algorithm
−7
(9) outperforms both the L&R and the Fitz algorithms. Fig. 1
10
−10 −5 0
E /N (dB)
5 10 15 also illustrates that the MSE reduces when the number of
s 0
receive antennas increases. As far as complexity is concerned,
Fig. 1. MSE-performance of different DA frequency estimation algorithms Table I indicates that the simplified algorithms are essentially
for known channel. (L = 20, NT = 4, NR = 1 − 2) equivalent for M = P = Q, as the evaluation of the time
TABLE I
correlations {RDA;F (m)} is the main computational burden.
T HE COMPLEXITY OF THE DA FREQUENCY ESTIMATION ALGORITHMS
( FOR known CHANNEL ). F OR A FAIR COMPARISON , THE PARAMETERS ARE B. Joint channel and frequency offset estimation
P = Q = M = L/2.
1) ML estimation: In this section we address the data-
aided joint maximum likelihood estimation of the channel and
complex additions complex multiplications
frequency offset. Let us consider the log-likelihood function
3 5
L&R L 8
L + NT NR − 4
L 38 L + 2NT NR + 12 (LLF) of H and F related to the observation (1).
3 5
Fitz L 8
L + NT NR − 4
L 38 L + 2NT NR + 34
3 3
DA;F L 8
L + NT NR − 4
L 38 L + 2NT NR + 54
L−1
1 2
ln p (Y|H, F ) = − yk − Hak ej2πF kT (13)
N0
k=0
furthermore, the new closed-form frequency estimator is ob- The joint ML-estimate corresponds to the values of H and
tained: F that maximize ln p (Y|H, F ). For a given trial value F̂ ,
the channel matrix Ĥ that maximizes (13) is readily found
M
1 m=1 m |RDA;F (m)| arg [RDA;F (m)] to be (15). Inserting (15) in (13) and rearranging yields the
F̂DA;F = M . (9) frequency offset estimate (14).
2πT 2
m=1 m |RDA;F (m)|
We should indicate that because of the presence of the arg(.) L−1
function in (9), F̂DA;F is ambiguous when |arg (R(m))| F̂ML;H,F = arg max Re RDA;H,F (m)e −j2πmF̃ T
(14)
exceeds π. This limits the operating range of the proposed F̃ m=1
frequency offset estimation technique to the interval
L−1
L−1 −1
|F | < [2M T ]−1 (10) ĤML;H,F = yk aH
k e
−j2π F̂M L;H,F kT
an aH
n (15)
k=0 n=0
The above algorithm (9) is similar to the straightforward
where
extensions [15] to MIMO of the Luise&Reggiannini (L&R)
L−1
[7] and Fitz [8] SISO frequency estimation algorithms. The H
corresponding MIMO algorithms are RDA;H,F (m) = yk−m yk A(k, k − m) (16)
P k=m
1 m
L&R:F̂L&R = arg RDA;F (m) (11) and
L−1 −1
π(P + 1)T m=1
L−m
Q A(k, l) = aH
k an aH
n al .
1 m=1 m arg (RDA;F (m))
Fitz: F̂F itz = Q (12) n=0
2πT m=1 m
2
For high signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), the mean square error
where P and Q are design parameters. The L&R and Fitz (MSE) of these estimates approaches the CRB. The exact
algorithms have an operating range of |F | < [P T ]−1 and expression of the CRB for frequency offset estimation is found
|F | < [2QT ]−1 respectively [7], [8]. In a SISO context, the in [9].
L&R and Fitz algorithms both give rise to a MSE that is very As for frequency estimation with a known channel (4), a
close to the CRB for P = Q = L/2. closed-form solution to the maximization problem (14) does
Fig. 1 compares the MSE resulting from the computation- not exist. Exact determination of F̂ML;H,F requires a time
ally intensive ML algorithm (2), and the simplified algorithms consuming numerical search which makes frequency offset
SIMOENS and MOENECLAEY: REDUCED COMPLEXITY DATA-AIDED AND CODE-AIDED FREQUENCY OFFSET ESTIMATION 1561
−4
10
DA;H,F where
ML;H,F
CRB L−1
NT=1,N R=2, L=20 C(m) = aH H
k−m H Hak A(k, k − m). (19)
k=m
−5
10
−6 T R
10
10
−7 N =4, N =2, L=40
T R The first term corresponds to the phase rotation caused by
the frequency offset; the second term φd (m) = arg(C(m)) is
a self-noise term, and the last term φn (m) is introduced by
noise. It is apparent that the approximation
−8
10
−10 −5 0 5 10 15
estimation a computationally hard problem. On the other is readily seen from (19) that C(m) is real-valued, and
hand, the channel estimation algorithm (15) requires only a no self-noise term φd (m) appears. This illustrates that
small computational effort once the frequency offset estimate the self-noise is induced by the multiple transmit antenna
has been found. Hence it is of practical interest to search set-up.
• For systems with more than one transmit antenna, C(m)
for a frequency offset estimation algorithm with reduced
complexity, avoiding the exhaustive search implied in (14). is generally not real, resulting in a self-noise term φd (m).
Consequently, even in the absence of noise, the approx-
2) Computationally efficient estimation: Here, we derive imation (21) is not valid, and an error-floor is observed.
a new closed-form joint frequency offset and channel matrix • When the number L of randomly selected pilot symbols
estimator. As will be apparent in the sequel, the multi-antenna increases, the error floor reduces. This effect is readily
set-up gives rise to self-noise when the training sequence is understood since, for large L, C(m) converges to its
arbitrary. In section III-B.3 we show how proper design of the expectation Ea [C(m)], which is real-valued.
training sequence can avoid this problem. • The ML-estimator (14) does not suffer from an er-
Considering the similarity between (4) and (14), our closed- ror floor, which might be unexpected since the time-
form approximation to (14) is correlation in (14) contains the self-noise term φd (m).
However, as shown in appendix I, F̂ML;H,F = F in the
absence of noise. This is clearly not true for F̂DA;H,F ,
L−1 indicating that the self-noise term φd (m) is too large for
1 m=1 m|R DA;H,F (m)| arg(RDA;H,F (m))
F̂DA;H,F = L−1 2 . the approximation (21) to be accurate.
2πT m=1 m |RDA;H,F (m)|
(17) 3) Training sequence design: We will show how a
The corresponding channel matrix estimate is given by (15), proper selection of the training symbols can eliminate
with F̂ML;H,F replaced by F̂DA;H,F . In contrast with the the self-noise and the resulting MSE floor. As explained
algorithm (9) for the known channel case, the performance of L−1 above, the MSE floor arises from the fact that C(m) =
H H
the approximated closed-form solution (17) does not approach a
k=m k−m H Ha k A(k, k − m) is complex-valued. The
the CRB at high SNR for an arbitrary training sequence. In following proposition constitutes an approach to make C(m)
Fig. 2 we observe an error floor in the MSE performance of the real-valued.
the closed-form estimator (17), whereas the ML estimator (14) proposition 1: C(m) is real-valued ∀m if every sym-
does not suffer from such floor. It is interesting to note that bolvector ak is chosen from a complete orthogonal set, i.e.
a similar flooring effect occurs with closed-form estimators a k ∈ {α 0 , α1 , . . . , αNT −1 } ∀k, with αH i αj = NT Es δi−j ,
designed for SISO frequency selective channels [16]. and every vector α j is chosen at least once.
To explain this discrepancy between the performance of the proof: see appendix II.
sub-optimal solution (17) and the CRB or ML performance, Accordingly, the self-noise term φd (m) in (20) equals zero
we examine (17) and the time-correlation (16). Separating and the error-floor disappears. We point out that the number
signal from noise terms, the latter can be written as of symbolvectors in the orthogonal set is equal to the number
of transmit antennas NT .
In order to optimize the training sequence furthermore, we
take the training sequence constraint, which minimizes the
RDA;H,F (m) = C(m) exp (j2πF mT ) + noise (18) MSE of the channel estimate, into account. In [17], the training
1562 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS, VOL. 5, NO. 6, JUNE 2006
−4
10
sequence that minimizes the MSE related to the ML estimation DA;H,F
ak aH
k = LEs I, (22) N =4, N =2, L=20
T R
k
with I denoting the identity matrix. Choosing every vector ak
MSEF
−6
10
Let us now consider a periodic pilot sequence consisting of NT=4, N R=2, L=40
TABLE II
T HE COMPLEXITY OF M L; H, F FREQUENCY ESTIMATOR (14) COMPARED TO THE DA; H, F FREQUENCY ESTIMATOR (24). (M IS CHOSEN M = K/2)
The ML estimate b̂ML of b maximizes the log-likelihood 2) Maximization step: The maximization of (31) is similar
function (LLF): to the maximization of (14) for the data-aided estimation
problem. Hence, the following estimate update equations are
b̂ML = arg max ln p r b̃ (26) obtained:
b̃
where L−1
(i+1)
F̂EM = arg max Re
(i)
RCA;H,F (m)e−j2πF̃ mT (34)
p r b̃ = p r x, b̃ p (x) dx (27) F̃ m=1
x
L−1
L−1 −1
denotes the likelihood function. Often p r b̃ is very diffi- (i+1) (i)
(i+1) (i)H
cult to calculate, since the number of possible coded symbol ĤEM = yk āk e−j2πF̂EM kT · H
an an
combinations grows exponential with the block length. The k=0 n=0
(35)
EM algorithm is a method that iteratively solves (26). The
where
EM algorithm breaks up in two parts: the Expectation part
(28) and the Maximization part (29): L−1
(i) H
RCA;H,F (m) = yk−m yk A(i) (k, k − m)
k=m
Q b̃, b̂(i) = ln p(r|x, b̃)p x r, b̂(i) dx (28)
x
(i) −1
and A(i) (k, l) = āk
(i)H H al (i) . For large L,
n an an
b̂(i+1) = arg max Q b̃, b̂(i) . (29) (i)
b̃ RCA;H,F (m) can be simplified, using the approximation
It has been shown that b̂(n) converges to a stationary point of L−1 H
(i)
∼
n=0 an an = LEs I.
the LLF under fairly general conditions [11].
Q b| b̂(i)
= EA ln p ( Y| A, b)| Y, b̂(i)
L−1
L−1
(i) (i)
= −tr H ak aH
k HH + 2 yk e−j2πF kT aH
k HH . (31)
k=0 k=0
TABLE III
T HE COMPLEXITY OF THE CODE - AIDED ESTIMATORS (34), (36) AND (37) WITHIN EACH ITERATION .
−5
10
DA
the channel is unknown, however, it is possible to achieve ML
EM CA1
EM CA2 performance provided that the training sequence is carefully
EM
−6
MCRB selected.
10
Furthermore, we have derived an iterative EM-based code-
aided estimation scheme for the joint frequency offset and
−7
10
channel estimation. To reduce the complexity in the compu-
tation of the frequency offset update estimate, two alternative
MSE F
degrade at all.
−10
10
0 5 10 15
E /N (dB)
b 0
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The first author gratefully acknowledges the support
Fig. 5. MSE performance of the data-aided estimation algorithm (24) from the Fund for Scientific Research in Flanders (FWO-
using orthogonal pilot symbols compared to the iterative EM-algorithm and
approximations (36) and (37). (L = 128, NT = 4, NR = 2, ν = 1024)
Vlaanderen).
A PPENDIX I
(as explained in sections III-B.2 and IV-C). Such behavior In this appendix, we prove that the ML-estimate F̂ML;H,F
is not observed for estimator CA2. The BER performance equals the actual frequency offset F in the absence of noise.
resulting from the various estimators is shown as a function of Proof: In the absence of noise, the received signal has the
the iteration number in Fig. 6. Above a certain SNR threshold, following form
the CA2 estimator yields a BER performance that is very
close to the BER corresponding to known H and F . For high yk = Hak ej2πF kT (39)
SNR, estimator CA1 yields a BER floor, that is caused by the
self-noise in the estimates. As explained in section III-B.2, Setting the derivative of the function to be maximized in (14)
this error floor drops as the number of symbols increases. equal to zero, and substituting (39), we obtain for F̂ = F
Furthermore, since this flooring effect only occurs at very low L−1
values of the BER, estimator CA1 will yield a satisfactory (k − l)aH H
k H Hal A(l, k) = U − U
H
closed-form estimator can achieve ML performance irrespec- where γl ∈ N is the multiplicity of αl , i.e. the num-
tive of the training sequence if the channel is known. When ber of times αl appears in the transmitted sequence
1566 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS, VOL. 5, NO. 6, JUNE 2006
0 0
10 10
DA DA
EM CA1 iter1 EM CA2 iter1
EM CA1 iter2 EM CA2 iter2
−1 EM CA1 iter3 −1
10 EM CA2 iter3
10
EM CA1 iter4 EM CA2 iter4
EM CA1 iter5 EM CA2 iter5
perfect synchro perfect synchro
−2 −2
10 10
−3 −3
10 10
BER
BER
−4 −4
10 10
−5 −5
10 10
−6 −6
10 10
−7 −7
10 10
0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15
E /N (dB) Eb/N0 (dB)
b 0
Fig. 6. BER performance of the data-aided estimation algorithm (24) using orthogonal pilot symbols compared to the iterative EM-algorithm with
approximations (36) and (37). (L = 128, NT = 4, NR = 2, ν = 1024)
[16] M. Morelli and U. Mengali, “Carier-frequency estimation for transmis- Marc Moeneclaey received the Diploma and the
sions over selective channels,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 48, no. 9, Ph.D. Degree, both in electrical engineering, from
pp. 1580–1589, Sept. 2000. Ghent University, Gent, Belgium, in 1978 and 1983,
[17] T. L. Marzetta, “BLAST training: estimating channel characteristics for respectively. He is currently a Professor in the
high capacity space-time wireless,” in Ann. Allerton Conf., Monticello, Department of Telecommunications and Informa-
pp. 958–966, Sept. 1999. tion Processing at Ghent University. His main re-
[18] L. R. Bahl, J. Cocke, F. Jelinek, and J. Raviv, “Optimal decoding of search interest are in statistical communication the-
linear codes for minimising symbol error rate,” IEEE Trans. Inform. ory, carrier and symbol synchronization, bandwidth-
Theory, vol. 20, pp. 284–287, Mar. 1974. efficient modulation and coding, spread spectrum,
[19] A. N. D’Andrea, U. Mengali and R. Reggiannini, “The modified cramer- satellite and mobile communication. He is the author
Rao bound and its application to synchronization parameters,” IEEE of more than 250 scientific papers in international
Trans. Commun., vol. 42, pp. 1391–1399, Feb./Mar./Apr. 1994. journals and conference proceedings. Together with H. Meyr (RWTH Aachen)
and S. Fechtel (Siemens AG), he is coauthor of the book ”Digital Communica-
Frederik Simoens received the diploma of electrical tion Receivers - Synchronization, Channel estimation, and Signal Processing”
engineering in 2003 from Ghent University, Gent, (New York: Wiley, 1998)
Belgium, where he is currently working toward the
Ph.D. degree in the Department of Telecommunica-
tions and Information Processing. His main research
interests include parameter estimation, modulation
and coding for wireless digital communications.