- Research
- Open Access

# Spatial filter decomposition for interference mitigation

- Rabah Maoudj
^{1}Email author, - Michel Terre
^{1}, - Luc Fety
^{1}, - Christophe Alexandre
^{1}and - Philippe Mege
^{2}

**2014**:127

https://doi.org/10.1186/1687-6180-2014-127

© Maoudj et al.; licensee Springer. 2014

**Received:**28 March 2014**Accepted:**29 July 2014**Published:**15 August 2014

## Abstract

This paper presents a two-part decomposition of a spatial filter having to optimize the reception of a useful signal in the presence of an important co-channel interference level. The decomposition highlights the role of two parts of the filter, one devoted to the maximization of the signal to noise ratio and the other devoted to the interference cancellation. The two-part decomposition is used in the estimation process of the optimal reception filter. We propose then an estimation algorithm that follows this decomposition, and the global spatial filter is finally obtained through an optimal-weighted combination of two filters. It is shown that this two-component-based decomposition algorithm overcomes other previously published solutions involving eigenvalue decompositions.

## Keywords

- SIMO receiver
- Optimum combining
- Maximum ratio combining
- Antenna array

## 1 Introduction

Increasing capacity demand for wireless communication networks should lead to a high co-channel interference level in the future. This interference problem is not new and has been addressed, for a long time, in wireless networks. The first solutions, coming from 2G networks, were based on frequency reuse patterns while, a few years later, scrambling codes were used, for the same purpose, in 3G networks. Nowadays, diversity techniques are more and more considered as one of the best answer for this interference problem, especially in 4G networks. The work presented in this paper was initially based on private mobile radio (PMR) characteristics linked to the TETRA enhanced data service (TEDS) standard, but it is suitable also in the context of 4G transmissions which are based on the Long-Term Evolution (LTE) standard. The presented work addresses essentially the problem of transmission with high interference level ratio and fast varying propagation channels.

In such a context, several previous works have treated and analyzed the best spatial filter to maximize the signal to interference plus noise ratio (SINR). The optimum combining (OC) filter [1–5] can be proposed as an exploitable solution. It was also proven that, in the absence of interference, this optimum combining filter converges to the well-known maximum ratio combining (MRC) filter [6].

The main problem, in the estimation of the optimum combiner filter, resides in the estimation of the covariance matrix of the interference plus noise in addition to the estimation of the useful user propagation channel. The minimum mean square error estimation (MMSE) criterion can be used to estimate the desired user propagation channel, while the covariance matrix can be estimated by the sample matrix inversion (SMI) approach [7–9]. However, this strategy is suboptimal and requires a large signal sample set to get a correct smoothing stage [10, 11]. Another problem resides in the covariance matrix itself which will be obviously interpolated to the data locations since it is estimated on the pilot locations [10].

In this paper, we will prove that under certain conditions, the OC filter can perfectly be decomposed in two independent components. Hence, when the number of interferers is smaller than the number of receiving antennas, the OC filter can be split in two weighted components, namely MRC filter and interference canceller combiner (ICC). Moreover, for its own scientific interest, it will be proven that this decomposition leads to a new and efficient optimum filter estimation algorithm.

More precisely, we will show that for the MRC part of the OC filter, the classical MMSE can be proposed in order to obtain the estimation of the useful user propagation channel. On the other hand, we will show that the ICC part can be estimated by modifying the matched desired impulse response (MDIR) algorithm [12]. This algorithm requires a null linear system solving, and a constraint is required to prevent the trivial solution. Following [12], a constraint, so-called maximum SINR constraint (MSINRC), can be introduced; it will maximize the SINR at the output of the filter. The final solution-vector will then be given by the eigenvector corresponding to the lowest eigenvalue of a Hermitian matrix generated by the algorithm. Due to the presence of the noise, the estimation still remains suboptimal and the result is corrupted by the training noise estimation. It was proven in [13] that combining all eigenvectors, weighted by the inverse of their corresponding output SINR, could lead to an enhanced algorithm, so-called solution-vectors maximum ratio combining (SoMRC). It was shown that this approach gives better performance than the single solution-vector [13, 14]. Obviously, such kind of algorithms is based on a complex eigendecomposition. To simplify this step, we propose to introduce another constraint, leading to a less complex algorithm where we can avoid the eigendecomposition. We will also show that this new constraint keeps the performance of the algorithm comparable to that of the SoMRC.

The contribution of the presented work in the study of the optimum combiner filter consists on identifying the cases where it can be decomposed to a MRC plus a ICC independent filters. Another contribution consists of the modified MDIR algorithm and in the introduction of the new constraint that does not degrade performances of the SoMRC. A 16-bit digital signal processor (DSP) implementation is also presented in order to evaluate the rounding errors effect on the performance of the algorithm and to determine the possibility of the algorithm execution under some real-time constraints.

The paper is organized as follows. The system model is given in Section 2. Section 3 presents the split of the OC into two weighted independent parts, namely MRC and ICC. In Section 4, the estimation algorithm for ICC is detailed. A simplification of this estimation algorithm is introduced in Section 5. Numerical results and performance of the algorithms are presented in Section 6. A performance degradation study, due to a practical 16-bit fixed point DSP implementation is detailed in Section 7. Conclusion summarizes the present work in Section 8.

### 1.1 Notation

Vectors and matrices are boldface small and capital letters; the transpose, complex conjugate transpose, and inverse of matrix A are denoted by A^{
T
}, A^{
H
}, and A^{−1}, respectively.

The norm of vector *a* and the diagonal matrix with the diagonal element extracted from a are denoted respectively by ‖**a**‖ and diag{**a**}, I_{N} is the *N × N* identity matrix, and *E*[.] denotes the statistical expectation.

## 2 System model

*M*receiving antennas, with one desired signal and

*U*interferers, as presented in Figure 1. Desired user and interferers are transmitting orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing (OFDM) waveforms, and for the sake of simplicity, we will consider that all users are time and frequency synchronized. This remark is not restrictive, and all results presented are not linked to this hypothesis that will nevertheless simplify some notations in the sequel of the paper.

The OFDM frame of the desired user is composed of *K* subcarriers and *N*_{
s
} OFDM symbols. A *N*_{
g
} length cyclic prefix is inserted. It is assumed that this cyclic prefix is sufficient to totally suppress intersymbol interferences. We will focus on one OFDM symbol, and we will avoid indicating the symbol number in the notations. Algorithms presented will then be able to cope with a unique OFDM symbol and therefore able to deal with very high-speed propagation channels.

*k*th subcarrier on the

*m*th antenna, as presented in Figure 2, can be modeled by Equation 1:

*Z*_{k,u} is the symbol transmitted by the *u* th interferer.

*h*_{z,k,u}(*m*) denotes the frequency response of the channel between the *u* th interferer and the *m* th antenna. *n*_{
k
}(*m*) represents a centered additive white Gaussian noise term with a variance equals to $\sigma \stackrel{2}{n}$.

${\sum}_{u=1}^{U}{h}_{z,k,u}}\left(m\right){z}_{k,u$ is then the total contribution of the *U* interferers received by the *m* th antenna on the *k* th subcarrier.

*w*

_{ k }able to estimate the QAM symbol ${\widehat{x}}_{k}$ transmitted by the desired user. This leads to

*k*th subcarrier, ${\mathit{w}}_{k}=\left(\begin{array}{c}\hfill {w}_{k}\left(0\right)\hfill \\ \hfill \vdots \hfill \\ \hfill {w}_{k}\left(M-1\right)\hfill \end{array}\right)$ denotes, as illustrated in Figure 3,

*M*weights of the spatial filter and ${\mathit{y}}_{k}=\left(\begin{array}{c}\hfill {y}_{k}\left(0\right)\hfill \\ \hfill \vdots \hfill \\ \hfill {y}_{k}\left(M-1\right)\hfill \end{array}\right)$ stands for the

*k*th post-fast Fourier transform (FFT) outputs of

*M*antennas. Combining Equations 1, 2, and 3 leads to Equation 4

where ${\mathit{h}}_{x,k}=\left(\begin{array}{c}\hfill {h}_{x,k}\left(0\right)\hfill \\ \hfill \vdots \hfill \\ \hfill {{h}_{x,}}_{k}\left(M-1\right)\hfill \end{array}\right)$ denotes the *M* desired propagation channel frequency responses of the *k* th subcarrier,

${{\mathit{h}}_{x,k}}_{,u}=\left(\begin{array}{c}\hfill {{h}_{x,k}}_{,u}\left(0\right)\hfill \\ \hfill \vdots \hfill \\ \hfill {{h}_{x,k}}_{,u}\left(M-1\right)\hfill \end{array}\right)$ the *M* interfering propagation channel frequency responses between the *u* th interferer and the receiving antennas, and finally ${\mathit{n}}_{k}=\left(\begin{array}{c}\hfill {n}_{k}\left(0\right)\hfill \\ \hfill \vdots \hfill \\ \hfill {n}_{k}\left(M-1\right)\hfill \end{array}\right)$ stands for the received noise on the *M* receiving antennas.

The spatial filter that maximizes the signal to interference plus noise ratio (SINR_{
k
}) for ${\widehat{x}}_{k}$ was introduced in [1] and studied in [2, 3]. Main steps of this derivation are presented hereafter.

*E*[|

*x*

_{ k }|

^{2}] = 1 and

*E*[|

*z*

_{k,u}|

^{2}] = 1. According to Equation 4, the SINR

_{ k }, at the output of the spatial filter, is then given by

_{nn,k}stands for the

*M × M*spatial covariance matrix of interference plus noise, and it is expressed by

_{zz,k}matrix defined by

_{nn,k}as a summation of two parts as given hereafter

_{ k }becomes

_{ k }that maximizes the SINR

_{ k }can then be obtained by minimizing ${\mathit{w}}_{k}^{H}{\mathit{R}}_{\mathit{nn},k}{\mathit{w}}_{k}$ under the constraint ${\mathit{w}}_{k}^{H}{\mathit{h}}_{x,k}^{*}=1$. Using Lagrange multiplier, the optimum spatial filter is obtained by solving the following equation

_{ k }

*R*

_{nn,k}. We have

_{nn,k}) is equal to the product of eigenvalues of R

_{nn,k}, we have det(R

_{nn,k}) > 0. Finally, ${\mathit{w}}_{k}^{H}{\mathit{h}}_{x,k}^{*}=1$ leads to

Identifying the spatial filter w_{
k
} through Equation 19 is a very complex task involving R_{nn,k} estimation and inversion plus h_{x,k} estimation. In order to address this spatial filter estimation problem, we propose to split it on two separated filters. This approach highlights how the optimal spatial filter works.

## 3 Spatial filter decomposition

_{ k }and the diagonal matrix I

_{ μk }of the eigenvalues defined such that ${\mathit{I}}_{\mathit{\mu k}}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill {\mu}_{0,k}\hfill & \hfill 0\hfill & \hfill 0\hfill \\ \hfill 0\hfill & \hfill \ddots \hfill & \hfill 0\hfill \\ \hfill 0\hfill & \hfill 0\hfill & \hfill {\mu}_{M-1,k}\hfill \end{array}\right)$

*.*Then, the eigenspace decomposition of R

_{zz,k}can be written as follows

_{nn,k}decomposition, presented in Equations 7 and 8, we obtain

_{nn,k}as the transpose adjugate (cofactor) matrix of R

_{ nn }, defined as follows

*m*th component is given by

_{m,k}is null matrix for

*M*≤ 2 otherwise is defined by the following expression

As shown in the previous equation, G_{m,k} is linked to the interference covariance matrix. We note that in the case of totally decorrelated interferers, ${\mathit{R}}_{\mathit{zz},k}={\sigma}_{c}^{2}\mathit{I}$.

_{ k }

We conclude that the optimal spatial filter is a combination of three filters: mainly a filter dedicated exclusively to the interference, a maximum ratio combiner filter, and a filter linked to the statistical dependency of the interferers. Due to the complexity of the third filter, the estimation of the optimal spatial filter through the separate estimation of the filters is only interesting in the case of a two-antenna receiver (G_{m,k} = **0**).

### 3.1 Analysis for *M* = 2

*M*= 2), in this case, the optimal spatial filter given by Equation 27 becomes

With C_{zz,k} ≠ **0** for *U* ≥ *M* − 1*.*

*ρ*

_{ k }scalar defined as follows

Equation 34 expresses the optimum combiner w_{
k
} through a weighted combination of two combiners w_{z,k} and w_{h,k}.

In this two-part decomposition, w_{z,k} represents the optimum combiner in the case of a noiseless transmission with interference and w_{h,k} represents the maximum ratio combiner *ρ*_{
k
} and ${\sigma}_{n}^{2}$ are two positive scalars representing the degree of contribution of these two combiners w_{z,k} and w_{h,k}.

From this observation, we can derive the following theorem.

**Theorem:** *In the case of two-antenna SIMO receiver, the optimum combiner* w_{
k
}*can be expressed as a weighted combination of the optimum combiner* w_{
z,k
}*obtained in the case of null additive white Gaussian noise and the maximum ratio combiner* w_{
h,k
}.

Furthermore, of the physical interpretation of the optimal spatial filter, this decomposition can also be used to estimate the optimal spatial filter in two steps: a step devoted to the optimum combiner without taking into account the additive noise w_{z,k} and the other to the maximum ratio combiner w_{h,k}.

## 4 Spatial filter estimation

### 4.1 Estimation algorithm for w_{h,k}

The w_{h,k} filter does not depend on interference but only on the desired signal propagation channel. Its estimation is then directly linked to the estimation of the propagation channel h_{x,k}.

*L*taps finite impulse response filters and with

*L*<

*K*. We introduce then these impulse responses, corresponding to the

*m*th antenna, through the following vectors

_{ x }(

*m*) vector that represents the frequency response of the propagation channel between the useful user and the

*m*th antenna

_{ x }(

*m*) and h

_{ x }(

*m*) vectors are linked by the following equation

_{K,L}is the

*K*×

*L*truncated Fourier rectangular matrix defined as follows

_{ x }(

*m*) can be proceeded through the classical least square as given in the following equation

*y*

_{ k }(

*m*) received samples. A smoothing operation [15], leading to a new estimated ${\widehat{h}}_{x}\left(m\right)$ vector, can be proposed through the following equation

This estimation algorithm is known as the indirect estimation [16, 17], and some papers [18] propose to enhance it through the introduction of a noise power estimation and an adaptive weight, able to take this estimation into consideration.

*x*

_{ k }}

_{k ∈ [0, K − 1]}. In a real transmission, only pilot symbols are known. If we consider that we have

*K′*<

*K*comb pilots {

*x*

_{0′},

*x*

_{1′}, …,

*x*

_{K′}}, then Equation 41 becomes

where $\tilde{\mathit{h}}{\prime}_{x}\left(m\right)$ is a (*K*′ × 1) vector representing the first estimation of the propagation channel frequency responses on the pilot locations.

*m*th antenna, and it can be generalized to all antennas. If we consider now the

*k*th component ${\widehat{h}}_{x,k}\left(m\right)$ of all these ${\left\{{\widehat{\mathit{h}}}_{x}\left(m\right)\right\}}_{m\in \left[0,M-1\right]}$ vectors, we can introduce the ${\widehat{\mathit{h}}}_{x,k}$ vector defined as follows

_{h,k}vector is then directly given by

### 4.2 Estimation algorithm for w_{z,k}

The w_{z,k} vector is jointly dependent on interference, and propagation channels are devoted to interference sources cancellation. It is well known that a *M* antenna spatial filter is able to cancel *U* = *M* − 1 interferers. In our particular case, where we choose *M* = 2, we have then to cope with a unique interferer. In the sequel of this section, the *u* index that represents the interferer index will be omitted in equations.

_{zz,k}is given by

_{zz,k}is given as follows

where μ_{2,k} is the second column vector of U_{
k
} orthogonal to the interference vector $\left(\begin{array}{c}\hfill {h}_{z,k}\left(0\right)\hfill \\ \hfill {h}_{z,k}\left(1\right)\hfill \end{array}\right)$*.* Therefore, the following scalar vector is null ${\mathit{u}}_{2,k}^{T}\left(\begin{array}{c}\hfill {h}_{z,k}\left(0\right)\hfill \\ \hfill {h}_{z,k}\left(1\right)\hfill \end{array}\right)=0$. Therefore, ${\mathit{u}}_{2,k}=\alpha \left(\begin{array}{c}\hfill {h}_{z,k}\left(1\right)\hfill \\ \hfill -{h}_{z,k}\left(0\right)\hfill \end{array}\right)=0$, where *α* is a complex scalar. In the sequel, we set *α* = 1.

_{z,k}will then be rewritten as

*ρ*

_{ k }in the general formula of the optimal spatial filter given in Equation 34 becomes

Therefore, *ρ*_{
k
} is the intercorrelation factor between the desired and the interference channel vectors. From the theorem stated above and Equation 50, we emit the following proposition.

**Proposition:** *In the case of two*-*antenna SIMO transmission disturbed by an interferer*, *the optimum combiner* w_{
k
}*is a weighted combination of the interference cancellation filter* w_{z,k}*and the maximum ratio combining filter* w_{h,k}.

The estimation of w_{z,k,n} and *w*_{z,k,d} is a complex task that involves the knowledge of the desired and interferer propagation channels. Nevertheless, the expression of w_{z,k,n} and *w*_{z,k,d} given by Equations 52 and 53, respectively, gives opportunities to project these components on a reduced Fourier basis.

#### 4.2.1 *w*_{
z,k,n
}estimation

_{z,k,n}are simply those of the frequency response of the interferer propagation channels, corresponding to the

*k*th subcarrier. Therefore, the components of this filter can then easily be expressed on a reduced Fourier basis. For that purpose, we introduce the (

*K*× 1), h

_{ z }(

*m*) vector that represents the frequency response of the propagation channel between the interferer and the

*m*th antenna as follows

_{ z }(

*m*) vector is linked to the

*L*taps impulse response a

_{ z }(

*m*) through the following equation

*L*× 1) a

_{ z }(

*m*) vector is defined as follows

_{z,n}can be expressed as

#### 4.2.2 *w*_{
z,k,d
}estimation

On the other hand, we can notice that the *w*_{z,k,d} is a scalar obtained by the product of two frequency response terms. It can then be viewed as the Fourier transform of the convolution of two impulses responses of propagation channels, and it can then be linked to a virtual 2 *L* taps impulse response.

*L*× 1) v

_{z,d}vector representing this virtual impulse response

_{z,d}vector defined as

#### 4.2.3 Replica spatial filter structure

_{z,k}in a numerator part and a denominator part as given by Equation 51 leads to propose a new spatial filter structure having two weights, represented by w

_{z,k,n}acting over the received signal and a weight, represented by

*w*

_{z,k, d}

*,*acting over the useful signal (Figure 4).

*e*

_{ k }defined by

_{z,k}filter has to cancel the interference, we can propose to identify its two components through an error square minimization criterion

*ψ*(w

_{z,k,n},

*w*

_{z,k,d}) in order to avoid the trivial solution: (w

_{z,k,n}= 0,

*w*

_{z,k,d}= 0). Moreover, the minimization has to be done over all frequencies. It is then necessary to propose a global criterion. For that purpose, we introduce the X transmitted diagonal data matrix, where each element

*x*

_{ k }corresponds to the desired symbol transmitted over the

*k*th subcarrier

where *μ* is a Lagrange multiplier.

Without loss of generality, we can consider that all transmitted symbols *x*_{
k
} are normalized: |*x*_{
k
}|^{2} = 1, we have then X^{
H
}X = I. The constraint presented in Equation 68 is then equivalent to ‖w_{z,d}‖^{2} = 1.

^{2}−

*μψ*(w

_{z,n}, w

_{z,d}) with respect to w

_{ z,n }and w

_{z,d}[20], we obtain the following system of equations

It appears then that w_{z,d} is the eigenvector of the X^{
H
}(Y(Y^{
H
}Y)^{−1}Y^{
H
} − I)X matrix corresponding to the *μ* eigenvalue.

_{z,d}has to be the generalized eigenvector which corresponds to the minimal eigenvalue

*μ*. Using Equation 61, Equation 72 becomes

_{z, d}is the (2

*L*× 1) eigenvector of the matrix ${\mathit{F}}_{K,2L}^{H}\phantom{\rule{0.25em}{0ex}}{\mathit{X}}^{H}\left(\mathit{Y}{\left({\mathit{Y}}^{H}\mathit{Y}\right)}^{-1}{\mathit{Y}}^{H}-\mathit{I}\right)\mathit{X}{\mathit{F}}_{K,2L}$ corresponding to the minimal eigenvalue

*μ*. This result is known and used by many authors. An enhanced maximum signal to interference plus noise constraint (EMSINRC) is proposed in [13]. It is based on the exploitation of the set V

_{z,d}of all the eigenvectors of the previous matrix defined as

_{ z,d }, in order to propose a composite virtual impulse response ${v}_{z,d}^{c}$ defined as follows

where *μ*_{
i
} is the eigenvalue corresponding to the eigenvector ${\mathit{v}}_{z,d}^{i}$. The complex term *η*_{
i
} is defined such that ${\eta}_{i}=arg{max}_{{\eta}_{i}}{\Vert {\mathit{v}}_{z,d}^{c}\Vert}^{2}$ and |*η*_{
i
}| = 1. This complex scalar is acting as a phase term that aligns all eigenvectors.

_{z,n}, it is obtained by merging Equation 58 into the second equation of the system (69). Hence, v

_{z,n}is given as follows

v_{z,n} can then directly be obtained once v_{z,d} is determined.

Finally, having w_{z, d} and w_{z, n} form v_{z, d} and v_{z, n} by performing Equations 61 and 58, respectively, the interferer cancellation filter ${\mathit{w}}_{z,k}=\frac{{\mathit{w}}_{z,k,n}}{{\mathit{w}}_{z,k,d}}$ for all subcarriers is obtained.

At this stage, all elements have been established and the optimal filter, given by Equation 34, can be estimated. The combination of Equation 34 is based on *ρ*_{
k
} that can be obtained directly from Equation 54 noticing that the interferer power *μ*_{0} and ${\sigma}_{n}^{2}$ can be obtained through a noise plus interferer power estimation.

## 5 Interference cancellation filter simplification

The estimation of w_{z,d} and w_{z,n} involves an eigendecomposition which is a complex task, especially if we consider a practical implementation of the algorithm in the real-time context of the receiver. We will show, in this section, how this eigendecomposition can be avoided without involving any loss in the global performances of the algorithm.

The key element comes from the constraint introduced to avoid the trivial solution. Instead of ‖w_{z,d} ‖^{2} = 1, we propose to introduce a constraint directly applied to the virtual impulse response v_{z,d}. This constraint consists in forcing a component of this vector to be equal to 1.

If we denote by *k*_{
b
}, the index of this component, the constraint will be then given by v_{z,d}(*k*_{
b
}) = 1.

*B*, with all zero components except a diagonal component set to 1; the constraint is then formalized as follows

*ψ*′ (v

_{z,d})

_{z,d}leads to the new solution (v′

_{z,n}, v′

_{z,d}) given by

^{ H }B = B. Merging this equation and Equation 78 in Equation 81 leads to

_{z,n}leads to

with $\Omega ={\mathit{F}}_{K,2L}^{H}\phantom{\rule{0.25em}{0ex}}{\mathit{X}}^{H}\left(\mathit{I}-\mathit{Y}{\left({\mathit{Y}}^{H}\mathit{Y}\right)}^{-1}{\mathit{Y}}^{H}\right)\mathit{X}{\mathit{F}}_{K,2L}$ and where *μ*′ is a scalar chosen such that v′_{z,d}(*k*_{
b
}) = 1.

_{z,d}in the V

_{z,d}orthogonal basis introduced in Equation 75. We can then define a (2

*L*× 1) vector α

_{ d }representing the image of v′

_{z,d}in the V

_{z,d}basis as hereafter

_{z,d}are eigenvectors of the Ω matrix, we have

where I_{
μ
} is the diagonal matrix of eigenvalue of Ω.

_{ d }vector is then given by

where *η*′_{
i
} is the *i* th component of the ${k}_{b}^{\mathit{th}}$ column vector of the matrix ${\mathit{V}}_{z,d}^{H}$.

This last equation has to be compared to Equation 76 related to the EMSINRC algorithm. It leads to the conclusion that the EMSINRC algorithm is in fact equivalent to a constraint modification leading to a new constraint given by Equation 79.

## 6 Simulation results

In this section, we first evaluate performance of the various solutions presented in Sections 4 and 5. We will then compare:

The solution based on (v_{z,n}, v_{z,d}) that will be referred as maximum signal to interference plus noise ratio constraint (MSINRC)

The solution based on $\left({\mathit{v}}_{z,n}^{c},{\mathit{v}}_{z,d}^{c}\right)$ that will be referred as enhanced maximum signal to interference plus noise ratio constraint (EMSINRC)

The solution based on (v′_{z,n}, v′_{z,d}) that will be referred as coefficient constraint (CC)

**OFDM parameters**

Symbol | Name | Value |
---|---|---|

| Number of subcarriers | 32 |

| FFT size | 32 |

| Cyclic prefix | $\frac{{N}_{\mathrm{FFT}}}{8}=4$ |

| Total bandwidth | 100 kHz |

| Subcarrier spacing | 3,125 kHz |

| OFDM symbol duration | 360 μs |

| Frame duration | 18.36 ms |

*4-QAM*with the same power for pilots and data. The propagation channels used follow the Jakes model [21] with a propagation channel impulse response described in GSM standard [22], namely TU50 (typical urban with a mobile velocity of 50 km/h) and HT200 (hilly terrain with a mobile velocity of 200 km/h). The pilots are uniformly distributed along the frequency axis with a rate of $\frac{1}{2}$ as depicted in Figure 5 and along the time axis with a rate of $\frac{1}{5}$.

Algorithm's weights are estimated on the plots position for each OFDM symbol containing pilots. An interpolation within the subspace generated by the reduced DFT F_{
L
} and F_{2L} is followed to extend the weights to the whole OFDM symbol.

However, along the time axis, the interpolation method used is the spline cubic [23].

Performance assessment is performed by comparing the uncoded BER (bit error rate before channel decoding) vs. *E*_{
b
}*N*_{0} (signal to noise ratio) at signal to interference ratio (SIR) equal to 0 and 6 dB. As in [24, 25], an additional comparison is done to confirm the previous one and consists on the study of the normalized mean square error (NMSE) of $\widehat{\mathit{v}}$ expressed as $\mathrm{NMSE}={\frac{\Vert \widehat{v}-v\Vert}{{\Vert v\Vert}^{2}}}^{2},$ where v is the exact weight vector cancelling totally the interference, and $\widehat{\mathit{v}}=\left[\begin{array}{c}\hfill {\widehat{\mathit{v}}}_{n}\hfill \\ \hfill {\widehat{\mathit{v}}}_{d}\hfill \end{array}\right]$ is the estimation of v using the constraints studied in Section 4.

*E*

_{ b }

*N*

_{0}level, and obviously, the curves converge when

*E*

_{ b }

*N*

_{0}becomes high. Moreover, as expected in the theoretical analysis, the curves of CC and EMSINRC are superposed.

In the sequel, we discuss the performance of the estimated optimum combiner (EOC) based on the weighted combination of the estimated replica spatial filter using CC and the estimated MRC. EOC is then compared to the exact MRC (propagation channel *h*_{
d
} is perfectly known) and the exact optimum combiner (OC) where the covariance matrix *R*_{
nn
} and propagation channel *h*_{
d
} are perfectly known. Furthermore, additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN) power is assumed known.

*E*

_{ b }

*N*

_{0}= 20 dB. However, in HT200 environment, this difference is more significant and is approximately about 4 dB at

*E*

_{ b }

*N*

_{0}= 20 dB. This degradation is attributed to the estimation error of the EOC, which is proportional to the size of the weight vector. For example, in our case, the total weight vector length is equal to 4

*L*

_{TU}= 8 for TU50 and 4

*L*

_{HT}= 12 for HT200. We denote by

*L*

_{TU}= 2 and

*L*

_{HT}= 3 the maximum impulse response length of the propagation channels in TU50 and HT200 environments, respectively (Figures 10 and 11).

## 7 Real-time implementation

The complexity of an algorithm is often quantified in terms of the number of arithmetic operations. This quantification provides an estimate of the use of memory and execution time necessary to execute the algorithm.

Generally, algorithms are designed for real-time use and have to be performed by finite precision processors then the study of complexity raised above can meet the first requirement, but not enough to satisfy the second. In this section, we have performed a 16-bit DSP implementation in order to insure a full analysis, namely to check that the real-time constraint and 16-bit fixed points degradation tolerance are respected.

EOC using CC constraint is implemented into the 16-bit fixed-point DSP (TMS 320C6474) which works at frequency clock of 1G Hz [26]. The whole of the receive chain is implemented, but we will show only the results of the part where the discussed algorithms are involved, namely the channel equalization.

**Execution time and memory use**

Step | Memory used [bytes] | DSP cycle count | Execution time (μ s) |
---|---|---|---|

Weights estimation (with Gauss) | 2,348 | 1,859,684 | 1,860 |

Gauss (with prescaling) | 420 | 84,770 (97,205) | 84 |

Cholesky (with prescaling) | 1,280 | 70,306 (83,777) | 70 |

Channel equalization | 28 | 458,725 | 458 |

*E*

_{ b }

*N*

_{0}= 20 dB. One can observe that we have obtained satisfactory results in both cases of Gauss and Cholesky implementation.

## 8 Conclusions

This paper presents a new expression for the optimum combining filter for the case of a two-antenna based receiver. This expression is a weighted combination of two components. The first component is the combiner obtained in the case of null additive white Gaussian noise and the second is the combiner obtained in the case of null interference. This decomposition is important because it allows the optimal combining estimation through two filters of known sizes, so the problem of the size of the filters is avoided. A detailed study dedicated to a SIMO transmission in the case of one interferer and two receive antennas is presented in order to confirm the importance of this decomposition. A DSP implementation is also investigated to quantify the algorithm complexity. The success of this implementation is a proof that this algorithm is ready to use at least in cases close to the given example.

We note that all developments presented in the estimation part of the OC study have been based on one dimension estimation, mainly the frequency axis of the OFDM frame. However, the proposed method can be done on the time axis of the frame such as in [27, 28] or on both axis.

## Declarations

## Authors’ Affiliations

## References

- Raleigh GG, Cioffi JM: Spatio-temporal coding for wireless communication.
*IEEE Trans. Commun.*1998, 46: 357-366.View ArticleGoogle Scholar - Tang Z, Cannizzaro RC, Leus G, Banelli P: Pilot-assisted time-varying channel estimation for OFDM systems.
*IEEE Trans. Signal Process.*2007, 55(5):2226-2238.MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar - Baird AJ, Zahm CL: Performance criteria for narrowband array processing.
*Proc. IEEE Conf. Decis. Control*1971, 1: 564-565.Google Scholar - Zhihang Y, MinChul J, Il-Min K: Outage probability and optimum combining for time division broadcast protocol.
*IEEE Trans. Commun.*2011, 10: 1362-1367.Google Scholar - Winters JH: Optimum combining in digital mobile radio with cochannel interference.
*IEEE J. Selected Areas Commun.*1984, 2: 528-539.View ArticleGoogle Scholar - Roy S, Fortier P: Maximal-ratio combining architectures and performance with channel estimation based on a training sequence.
*IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun.*2004, 3: 1154-1164.View ArticleGoogle Scholar - Hara Y: Weight-convergence analysis of adaptive antenna arrays based on SMI algorithm.
*IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun.*2003, 2: 56-57.Google Scholar - Horowitz LL, Blatt H, Brodsky WG: Controlling adaptive antenna arrays with the sample matrix inversion algorithm.
*IEEE Trans. Aerosp. Electron. Syst.*1979, 15: 840-848.View ArticleGoogle Scholar - Ketonen J:
*Equalization and Channel Estimation Algorithms and Implementations for Cellular MIMO-OFDM Downlink*. University Of Oulu, Oulu, Finland; 2012.Google Scholar - Barhumi I, Leus G, Moonen M:
*MMSE Estimation of Basis Expansion Models for Rapidly Time-Varying Channels*. (ESAT laboratory of the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium; 2005.Google Scholar - Lee S-H, Kim H-S, Lee Y-H: Complexity reduced space ML detection for other-cell interference mitigation in SIMO cellular systems.
*Eur. Trans. Telecom.*2011, 22(1):51-60.View ArticleGoogle Scholar - Lagunas MA, Vidal J, Pérez Neira AI: Joint array combining and MLSE for single-user receivers in multipath gaussian multiuser channels.
*IEEE J. Selected Areas Commun.*2000, 18(11):2252-2259.View ArticleGoogle Scholar - Vidal J, Cabrera M, Augustin A: Full exploitation of diversity in space-time MMSE receivers.
*IEEE Vehicular Tech. Conf.*2000, 5: 2497-2502.Google Scholar - Maoudj R, Terre M: Post-combiner for interference cancellation algorithm.
*Int. Conf. Softw. Telecomm. Comput. Netw.*2012, 1: 1-5.Google Scholar - Dumard C, Zemen T: Low-complexity MIMO multiuser receiver: a joint antenna detection scheme for time-varying channels.
*IEEE Trans. Signal Process.*2008, 56(7):2931-2940.MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar - Hoeher P, Kaiser S, Robertson P: Pilot-symbol-aided channel estimation in time and frequency.
*IEEE Global Telecom. Conf. GLOBECOM*1997, 90-96.Google Scholar - Auer G, Karipidis E: Pilot aided channel estimation for OFDM: a separated approach for smoothing and interpolation.
*IEEE Trans. Commun.*2005, 4: 2173-2178.Google Scholar - Salman F, Cosmas J, Zhang Y:
*Pilot aided channel estimation for SISO and SIMO in DVB-T2 (Annual post graduate symposium on the convergences of telecommunication, networking and broadcasting*. Liverpool, England; 2012:1-6.Google Scholar - Caus M, Perez-Neira A: Space-time receiver for filterbank based multicarrier systems. In
*Procedure of international ITG workshop on Smart Antennas WSA*. Bremen, Germany; 2010:421-427.Google Scholar - Wen-Sheng H, Bor-Sen C: ICI Cancellation for OFDM communication systems in time-varying multipath fading channels.
*IEEE Trans. Commun.*2005, 4(5):2100-2110.Google Scholar - Jakes WC:
*Microwave Mobile Communications*. John Wiley & Sons Inc, Michigan, USA; 1975.Google Scholar - COST-207: Digital land mobile radio communications. Final report of the COST-project 207, Commission Of the European Community, Brussels; 1989.Google Scholar
- Dyer SA, Dyer JS: Cubic-spline interpolation. 1.
*IEEE Instrum. Meas. Mag.*2001, 4(1):44-46.View ArticleMathSciNetGoogle Scholar - Raghavendra MR, Bhashyam S, Giridar K: Interference rejection for parametric channel estimation in reuse-1 cellular OFDM systems.
*IEEE Trans. Vehicular Tech.*2009, 58: 4342-4352.View ArticleGoogle Scholar - Zemen T, Mecklenbräuker CF, Wehinger J, Müller RR: Iterative joint time-variant channel estimation and multi-user detection for MC-CDMA.
*IEEE Trans. Commun.*2006, 5: 1469-1478.Google Scholar - TMS320C6474 Multicore digital signal processor data manual (Rev. H). Texas Instruments Incorporated; 2001.Google Scholar
- Zemen T, Mecklenbrauker CF: Time-variant channel estimation using discrete prolate spheroidal sequences.
*IEEE Trans. Signal Process.*2005, 53: 3597-3607.MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar - Zemen T, Bernado L, Czink N: Iterative time-variant channel estimation for 802.11p using generalized discrete prolate spheroidal sequences.
*IEEE Vehicular Tech. Conf.*2012, 1: 1222-1233.View ArticleGoogle Scholar

## Copyright

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited.