- Research
- Open Access
Joint mean angle of arrival, angular and Doppler spreads estimation in macrocell environments
- Nessrine Ben Rejeb^{1}Email author,
- Inès Bousnina^{1},
- Mohamed Bassem Ben Salah^{1} and
- Abdelaziz Samet^{2}
https://doi.org/10.1186/1687-6180-2014-133
© Ben Rejeb et al.; licensee Springer. 2014
- Received: 9 May 2014
- Accepted: 18 August 2014
- Published: 27 August 2014
Abstract
In this paper, we propose a new low-complexity joint estimator of the mean angle of arrival (AoA), the angular spread (AS), and the maximum Doppler spread (DS) for single-input multiple-output (SIMO) wireless channel configurations in a macrocell environment. The non-line-of-sight (NLOS) case is considered. The space-time correlation matrix is used to jointly estimate the three parameters. Closed-form expressions are developed for the desired parameters using the modules and the phases of the cross-correlation coefficients. Simulation results show that our approach offers a better tradeoff between computational complexity and accuracy than the most recent estimators in the literature.
Keywords
- Joint estimation
- Mean angle of arrival
- Angular spread
- Maximum Doppler spread
- Space-time correlation
- Rayleigh channel
1 Introduction
In wireless systems, the propagation environment has a great impact on smart antenna performance. Indeed, the multipath phenomenon produces the fading of signal strength due to constructive and destructive interferences. It also induces multiple angles of arrival (AoA) and angular spreads (AS), which reduces signal quality and hence degrades the performance of smart antennas. The estimation of those parameters is crucial and would improve the potential of smart antennas.
The mean AoA and the AS are critical parameters. Their estimates are used in several applications like source localization and detection [1]. The maximum Doppler spread (DS) is also a key parameter. Indeed, it provides information about the fading severity, and its knowledge at the base station can be used for hand-off purposes [2]. It is also needed in dynamic channel assignment [2], so that it can improve link quality. In this paper, we propose a new joint estimator for the mean AoA, the AS, and the maximum DS with a low-complexity approach. This work is motivated by the need to develop a new simple and accurate approach to jointly estimate the desired parameters since they are all required by several applications in mobile communication systems. To the best of our knowledge, there is no estimator which jointly estimates the three parameters. One can argue that two estimators among the literature could be easily combined. But implementing a different method for each parameter increases the overall computational complexity. Besides, there is room for performance improvement by recurring to a joint estimation approach while keeping overall complexity at a modest order, thereby resulting in a significantly improved performance vs. complexity trade-off. It is from this perspective that we propose in this work a low-complexity algorithm to jointly estimate the desired parameters with high accuracy.
Mean AoA and AS estimation has been studied in recent works. The maximum likelihood (ML) method is used in [3, 4]. The Gaussian-Newton algorithm used in [4] shows high computational complexity, whereas in [3], a new derivative of the ML method is developed. The latter considers the problem of localizing a source by means of a sensor array for a noisy received signal. This estimator is based on two solutions, considering both high and low signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) cases. In [5], the Gaussian-Newton algorithm is applied using the estimated covariance matrix of a single-input multiple-output (SIMO) configuration. This approach provides accurate estimates over a high computational complexity. In [6], a simple and accurate mean AoA estimator in the case of imperfect spatial coherence is proposed. In [1] and [7], low-complexity estimators are developed. The idea of replicating the transmitting source into two virtual sources is used. Then, the mean AoA and the AS are estimated by, respectively, averaging and differentiating the two virtual AoAs. In [7], the spread root-MUSIC algorithm is used, while in [1], the two-stage (TS) approach is developed using closed-form expressions.
Several methods were developed in the context of mobile communications to estimate the maximum DS. The auto-correlation function (ACF) was exploited in [3] and [8] to offer accurate estimates. In [3], a ML method based on a polynomial approximation of the ACF is used. While the estimator developed in [8] uses the ACF derivatives and takes into account the incoming wave distribution. Unlike the method described in [3], it presents a low computational complexity. In [9], a level crossing rate (LCR) approach is proposed. It considers a novel Doppler adaptive noise suppression process in the frequency domain to reduce the effect of the additive noise. In [10–12], Azemi et al. investigate the maximum DS estimation using three different techniques. The first approach is based on the reduced interference time-frequency distribution of the received signals [10]. The second one considers the ambiguity function [11], while the proposed algorithm in [12] uses the instantaneous frequency of the received signal. The two-ray (TR) approximation proposed in [13] offers a robust maximum DS estimation. It offers a closed-form expression and considers the presence of residual carrier frequency offset (CFO), which is closer to real-life scenarios.
In this work, we consider as benchmarks the TS approach [1] and the SRM algorithm [7] for the mean AoA and AS estimation, and the TR approach [13] and the ACF-based algorithm [8] for the maximum DS estimation. These recent works were chosen because they currently offer best trade-off between estimation accuracy and computational complexity.
This paper is organized as follows: In Section 2, we describe the considered signal model then define the space-time correlation matrix. We consider here the Gaussian and the Laplacian angular distributions for the incoming AoAs [14], the most popular ones in the literature. Nonetheless, the algorithm can be applied for other distributions like the uniform one. Next, we propose our joint estimator for the mean AoA, the AS, and the maximum DS. In Section 3, we evaluate the performance of the proposed approach before drawing out our conclusions in Section 4.
Notation: We use (.)^{∗} for conjugate operator, |.| for absolute value, E[.] for mathematical expectation, and ∠ for phase. ℜ(.) represents the real parts of a complex number. We also use (.)^{ H } for trans-conjugate operator. The bold uppercase and lowercase letters represent, respectively, the matrices and vectors, while the non-bold lowercase letters represent scalars.
2 Derivation of the new joint estimator
so that ${\sigma}_{{s}_{i}}^{2}=E\left[\phantom{\rule{0.3em}{0ex}}{\left|{x}_{i}\left(t\right)\right|}^{2}\right]-{\sigma}_{{n}_{i}}^{2}$ where ${\sigma}_{{n}_{i}}^{2}$ is the power of the additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN), n_{ i }(t), at the i th antenna. The AoAs θ_{p} of the received signals follow an angular distribution with a mean and a standard deviation defined by the mean AoA, θ_{m}, and the AS, σ_{ θ }, respectively. The phases ϕ_{p} are uniformly distributed over (-π π]. ω_{D} denotes the normalized maximum DS and is given by ω_{D}= 2 π F_{D}T_{s} where F_{D} is the Doppler frequency [15] and T_{s} is the sampling interval.
where P(θ_{p}|θ_{m},σ_{ θ }) is the probability density function (PDF) of the incoming AoAs.
where N_{s} is the number of the received signal samples.
In this paper, we consider both Gaussian and Laplacian angular distributions for the incoming AoAs [14]. Other angular distribution for the incoming AoAs can be applied like the uniform one, but this would yield to different closed-form expressions. The von Mises distribution approximate all these angular distributions over κ parameter value, but in our approach, it does not yield to closed-form expressions of the auto-correlation and cross-correlations functions.
2.1 Gaussian angular distribution
∀ k < l and (k,l) ∈ {1 … N_{a}} with k ≠ l.
∀ k < l < j and (k,l,j) ∈ {1 … N_{a}} with k ≠ l ≠ j.
∀ k < l and (k,l) ∈ {1 … N_{a}} with k ≠ l.
2.2 Laplacian angular distribution
where k,l ∈ {1 … N_{a}} and k ≠ l.
The final estimates are then obtained by averaging over antenna branches separated by a half wavelength. As one can notice, only the cross-correlation matrix is used to jointly estimate the three parameters. Contrarily to the methods developed in [1, 13], the proposed algorithm does not require the additive noise power estimation nor the eigenvalue decomposition of the correlation matrix, which reduces considerably the overall computational complexity. In the next section, we study both performance and complexity of our joint estimator.
3 Simulation results
We illustrate the performance of the new joint estimator (JE) in macrocell environments by means of N_{b}= 1,000 Monte-Carlo simulations. We consider N_{s} = 1,024 samples and a ULA with N_{a}= 5 elements spaced by a half wavelength. We also use the non-selective frequency Rayleigh channel model described in [19]. The simulations are CFO free and run at SNR = 20 dB and the sampling interval is set to ${T}_{\text{s}}=\frac{1}{1,500}$ s. Two time lags τ are needed to ensure high accuracy. This is why we consider in this section τ = 1 for the mean AoA and the AS estimation and τ = 100 for the maximum DS estimation. However, if the targeted application does not require accurate estimates, one time lag could be used then. The sampling rate 1/T_{s} is sufficiently small to guarantee τ T_{s}≪ 1. Exhaustive simulations were performed and showed that averaging over all antenna pairs induces several possible AoAs that give the same phase difference. This is why only the closest antenna elements (d = λ/2) are considered for the three-parameter estimation to avoid the ambiguity problem. In that case, only the first subdiagonal of the cross-correlation matrix is used. The subdiagonal cross-correlation coefficients are nominally equal; this is why considering more antenna elements would not improve the estimation accuracy of the joint estimation.
We evaluate our approach by comparing it to the TS approach [1] and the SRM [7] for the mean AoA and the AS estimation. For the maximum DS, we take as benchmark the TR approach [13] and the ACF-based algorithm [8]. We also compare these estimators to the Cramér-Rao lower bounds (CRLBs). For the mean AoA and AS, we consider the CRLB developed in [20]. For the maximum DS, we use the one developed in [21]. The used CRLBs for each given parameter assume the two others to be perfectly known and hence very likely overestimate the true joint CRLB.
For the AS estimation, as shown in Figures 4 and 5, the TS and JE approaches have similar error rate for low AS values. The JE estimator achieves a lower NRMSE than the TS approach [1] for high AS region where accuracy is precisely more beneficial and is the most encountered in practice. The inaccuracy shown by the TS approach for mean AoA and AS estimation is due to the approximation of the AS angular distribution while our algorithm considers an exact expression. Indeed, the proposed JE offers accurate estimates even for small ASs, while the SRM algorithm offers higher NRMSE’s. For high AS values, the SRM and JE estimators have similar performances. We note that for both mean AoA and AS estimates, we obtain a difference less than 1 dB between the NRMSEs given by the JE estimator and the CRLB. We note that, for low AS values, the JE NRMSEs are almost optimal, since they coincide with the CRLB.
Performance and complexity comparison
JE | TS | TR | TS and TR combined | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Joint estimation capability | Yes (3/3) | Partly (2/3) | No (1/3) | Yes (3/3) |
AS accuracy at practical high values | + | - | N.A. | - |
AoA accuracy | + | - | N.A. | - |
DS accuracy at practical low values | + | N.A. | - | - |
Complexity order (floating-point operations) | ${N}_{\text{s}}{N}_{\text{a}}^{2}-{N}_{\text{a}}^{2}$ | ${N}_{\text{s}}{N}_{\text{a}}^{2}$ | N_{a} (N_{s} - 1) | ${N}_{\text{s}}{N}_{\text{a}}^{2}+({N}_{\text{s}}-1)$ |
(p + 1)^{3} | N_{a} (p + 1)^{3} |
4 Conclusions
In this paper, we proposed a new low-complexity approach to jointly estimate the mean AoA, the AS, and the maximum DS in macrocell environments. The magnitudes and the phases of the cross-correlation matrix were used to estimate the three parameters. We developed the joint estimation algorithm for both the Gaussian and the Laplacian angular distributions in a NLOS scenario. Simulation results showed that our method provides more accurate estimates of the mean AoA and the AS than the TS and SRM approaches. For the maximum DS estimation, the new joint estimator outperforms the TR and ACF approaches at small DSs with lower computational complexity.
Declarations
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Prof. Sofiène Affes of the Wireless Communications Group at INRS-EMT, Canada for the helpful comments and suggestions on this paper.
Authors’ Affiliations
References
- Souden M, Affes S, Benesty J: A two-stage approach to estimate the angles of arrival and the angular spreads of locally scattered sources. IEEE Trans. Signal Process 2008, 56(5):1968-1983.MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Lee M, Cho D: A new adaptative power control scheme based on mobile velocity in wireless mobile communication systems. IEEE Vehicular Technol. Conf 2001, 4: 2878-2882.Google Scholar
- Besson O, Vincent F, Stoica P, Gershman A: Approximate maximum likelihood estimators for array processing in multiplicative noise environments. IEEE Trans. Signal Process 2000, 48(9):2185-2194.View ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
- Kikuchi S, Sano A, Tsuji H, Miura R: A novel approach to mobile-terminal positioning using single array antenna in urban environments. IEEE Conf. Vehicular Technol. VTC-Fall Conf 2003, 2: 1010-1014.Google Scholar
- Trump T, Ottersen B: Estimation of nominal direction of arrival and angular spread using an array of sensors. Signal Process 1996, 50(1–2):57-69.View ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
- Besson O, Stoica P, Gershman AB: Simple and accurate direction of arrival estimator in the case of imperfect spatial coherence. IEEE Trans. Signal Process 2001, 49(4):730-737. 10.1109/78.912917View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Bengtsson M, Ottersten B: Low-complexity estimators for distributed sources. IEEE Trans. Signal Process 2000, 48(8):2185-2194. 10.1109/78.851999View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Tepedelenlioglu C, Giannakis GB: On velocity estimation and correlation properties of narrow-band mobile communication channels. IEEE Trans. Vehicular Technol 2001, 50(4):1039-1052. 10.1109/25.938579View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Park G, Hong D, Kang C: Level crossing rate estimation with Doppler adaptive noise suppression technique in frequency domain. IEEE Conf. Vehicular Technol. VTC-Fall 2003, 2: 1192-1195.Google Scholar
- Nasseh S, Azemi G: Doppler spread estimation in microcellular systems using reduced interference time-frequency distribution of the received signals. In IEEE Proceedings of Iranian Conference on Electrical Engineering. Isfahan; 11–13 May 2010.Google Scholar
- Azemi G, Nasseh S: Doppler spread estimation in mobile communication systems using the ambiguity function of the received signals. In 2009 IEEE 70th Vehicular Technology Conference Fall (VTC 2009-Fall). Anchorage; 20–23 Sept 2009.Google Scholar
- Azemi G, Senadji B, Boashash B: Mobile unit velocity estimation in micro-cells based on the instantaneous frequency of the received signal. IEEE Trans. Vehicular Technol 2004, 53: 716-724. 10.1109/TVT.2004.827157View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Souden M, Affes S, Benesty J, Bahroun R: Robust Doppler spread estimation in the presence of a residual carrier frequency offset. IEEE Trans. Signal Process 2009, 57: 4148-4153.MathSciNetView ArticleGoogle Scholar
- 3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; Spatial channel model for multiple input multiple output (MIMO) simulations (3GPP TR 25.996 V11.0.0). 2012.Google Scholar
- Abdi A, Kaveh M: Parametric modeling and estimation of the spatial characteristics of a source with local scattering. IEEE Int. Conf. Acoustics Speech Signal Process 2002, 3: 2821-2824.Google Scholar
- Jeffrey A, Zwillinger, D (eds.): Table of Integrals, Series, and Products. Elsevier, New York; 2007.Google Scholar
- SI-METRA ist-2000-30148, final report 2003.Google Scholar
- Bousnina I, Stéphenne A, Affes S, Samet A: A new low-complexity angular spread estimator in the presence of line-of-sight with angular distribution selection. EURASIP J. Adv. Signal Process 2011, 2011(88):1-16.Google Scholar
- Stéphenne A, Champagne B: Effective multi-path vector channel simulator for antenna array systems. IEEE Trans. Vehicular Technol 2000, 49(6):2370-2381. 10.1109/25.901906View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Trump T, Ottersten B: Estimation of nominal direction of arrival and angular spread using an array of sensors. Elsevier Signal Processing special issue on subspace methods, part I: array signal processing subspace computations 1996, 50(1–2):57-69.View ArticleMATHGoogle Scholar
- Tepedelenlioglu C: Performance analysis of velocity (Doppler) estimators in mobile communications. IEEE Int. Conf. Acoustics Speech Signal Process. (ICASSP) 2002, 3: 2201-2204.Google 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/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited.