1
Low-Complexity Sparse FIR Channel Shortening
Ahmad Gomaa,
Student Member, IEEE
, and Naofal Al-Dhahir,
Fellow, IEEE
The University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, TX, USA
Abstract
—The complexity of maximum-likelihood (ML) ormaximum-a-posteriori (MAP) detectors grows exponentially withthe number of channel impulse response (CIR) taps. This makesthe implementation of ML or MAP detectors over broadbandchannels with long CIRs prohibitively complex. Channel short-ening is a widely-used technique to solve this problem byimplementing a front-end finite impulse response (FIR) filter toshorten the CIR. In this paper, we propose a novel approachbased on compressive sensing theory to design low-complexityFIR channel shortening filters. The superiority of our newapproach is proven analytically and illustrated via simulations.
I. I
NTRODUCTION
Broadband communication is characterized by long channelimpulse responses (CIRs) which introduce signal process-ing implementation challenges for both single-carrier (SC)systems and multi-carrier modulation (MCM) systems. InSC systems, the complexity of maximum-likelihood sequenceestimation (MLSE) grows exponentially with the number of CIR taps. In MCM systems, a guard sequence is insertedafter each input block to prevent inter-block interference. Theguard sequence length must be greater than or equal to theCIR length. For channels with severe inter-symbol interference(ISI), the resulting guard sequence overhead causes significantdata rate loss.As a remedy for this problem, a front-end equalizer, com-monly known as a channel shortening equalizer (CSE), isdesigned such that the cascade of the long CIR and theequalizer is equivalent to a short target impulse response(TIR). Several TIR design criteria have been investigated inthe literature. In [1], the TIR was chosen to be a truncatedversion of the original IR. A monocity condition on the TIRwas suggested in [2]. In [3], the mean-square error (MSE)between the TIR and the cascade of the CIR and the CSE wasminimized subject to a unit-energy constraint (UEC) on theTIR. Finite-length equalizers were proposed in [4] for MCMsystems under a unit-tap constraint (UTC). In [5], the UTCand the UEC criteria were unified under a single framework that lends itself to other constraints as well. In [6], the CSEdesigns were generalized to multiple-input multiple-output(MIMO) channels. In [7], channel shortening is performedblindly without channel knowledge at the receiver.In [5], the TIR taps were chosen to be contiguous and theCSE is designed using the minimum MSE (MMSE) criterion.In this paper, we relax this condition by allowing the TIR tapsand the CSE taps to be noncontiguous and sparse. We showhow the tap locations and weights can be computed usingcompressive sensing (CS) theory [8], [9]. In addition, we proveanalytically that the resulting MMSE is reduced or at leastremains the same as in the contiguous case while reducing the
This work is supported by a gift from RIM Inc.
implementation complexity significantly. A Viterbi algorithm(VA) was proposed in [10] for MLSE of signals in sparsechannels with noncontiguous taps. A parallel-trellis implemen-tation of the VA was presented in [11] for sparse channelswhere the taps are noncontiguous but uniformly spaced. Turboequalization for channels with noncontiguous taps has beenproposed in [12], [13]. Furthermore, we use CS theory todesign a sparse shortening equalizer where the number of itstaps is reduced at a small performance loss. Reducing thenumber of equalizer taps automatically reduces the numberof complex multiplications required to filter (equalize) thereceived signal. The rest of this paper is organized as follows.In Section II, we provide a review of CS theory and describethe signal model. The sparse channel shortening problem isformulated in Section III and the sparse design of the CSEis described in Section IV. In Section V, we present thesimulation results. Finally, the conclusion is given in SectionVI.
Notations
: Unless otherwise stated, lower and upper casebold letters denote vectors and matrices, respectively. Thematrix
I
denotes the identity matrix and its size is denoted bythe subscript. The matrix
0
m
×
n
denotes the all-zero matrixof size
m
×
n
. Also,
( )
H
,
( )
∗
, and
( )
−
1
denote thematrix complex-conjugate transpose, the complex conjugate,and the matrix inverse operations, respectively. The portion of the vector
x
starting from the index
a
and ending at the index
b
is denoted by
x
a
:
b
.II. CS B
ACKGROUND AND
S
IGNAL
M
ODEL
A. Compressive Sensing Background
CS theory [8], [9] asserts that we can recover a sparse vector
x
∈
C
N
from a measurement vector
y
∈
C
M
where
M
N
.In other words, the exact solution of the under-determinedsystem of equations
y
=
A
x
+
z
can be computed where
A
denotes the
M
×
N
measurement matrix and
z
∈
C
M
isa zero-mean random noise vector. The word “sparse” meansthat
x
contains few nonzero elements. The sparse vector
x
is recovered by solving the following
l
1
-norm constrainedminimization problem [14]
min
˜
x
∈
C
N
˜
x
1
subject to
y
−
A
˜
x
2
≤
(1)where
.
1
and
.
2
denote the
l
1
-norm and the
l
2
-norm,respectively, and
is chosen such that it bounds the amountof noise in the measurements. In fact, the above programsearches for the
sparsest
vector
˜
x
such that
y
−
A
˜
x
22
≤
.Furthermore, the convex optimization problem in (1) is asecond-order cone program and can be solved efficiently [15].
2
x
k
h
k
n
k
W
e
k
y
k
b
Fig. 1. System block diagram
B. Signal Model
We consider the case of a linear, time invariant, dispersive,and noisy communication channel. The complex-valued equiv-alent baseband signal model is used. Assuming an oversam-pling factor of
l
, the received samples have the standard form
y
k
=
ν
m
=0
h
m
x
k
−
m
+
n
k
(2)where
h
m
is the CIR whose memory is denoted by
ν
and
n
k
is the additive noise. The quantities
{
y
,
h
m
,
n
}
are
l
×
1
col-umn vectors corresponding to the
l
time (fractionally-spaced)samples per symbol in the assumed temporally oversampledchannel model. Furthermore,
x
k
−
m
is the transmitted symbolat time
(
k
−
m
)
.Grouping
{
y
k
}
over a block of
N
f
symbol periods, theinput-output relation in (2) can be expressed in the followingmatrix notation
⎡⎢⎢⎢⎣
y
k
y
k
−
1
...
y
k
−
N
f
+1
⎤⎥⎥⎥⎦
=
⎡⎢⎢⎢⎣
h
0
h
1
...
h
ν
0
...
00
h
0
h
1
...
h
ν
0
...
.........
0
...
0
h
0
h
1
...
h
ν
⎤⎥⎥⎥⎦
.
⎡⎢⎢⎢⎣
x
k
x
k
−
1
...
x
k
−
N
f
−
ν
+1
⎤⎥⎥⎥⎦
+
⎡⎢⎢⎢⎣
n
k
n
k
−
1
...
n
k
−
N
f
+1
⎤⎥⎥⎥⎦
(3)or more compactly
y
k
:
k
−
N
f
+1
=
Hx
k
:
k
−
N
f
−
ν
+1
+
n
k
:
k
−
N
f
+1
(4)The
(
N
f
+
ν
)
×
(
N
f
+
ν
)
input correlation matrix is definedby
R
xx
≡
E
x
k
:
k
−
N
f
−
ν
+1
x
H k
:
k
−
N
f
−
ν
+1
and the
(
lN
f
)
×
(
lN
f
)
noise correlation matrix is defined by
R
nn
≡
E
n
k
:
k
−
N
f
+1
n
H k
:
k
−
N
f
+1
.
Both
R
xx
and
R
nn
are assumed to be positive-definite (non-singular) correlation matrices. Furthermore, the output-inputcross-correlation and the output auto-correlation are, respec-tively, given by
R
yx
≡
E
y
k
:
k
−
N
f
+1
x
H k
:
k
−
N
f
−
ν
+1
=
HR
xx
(5)
R
yy
≡
E
y
k
:
k
−
N
f
+1
y
H k
:
k
−
N
f
+1
=
HR
xx
H
H
+
R
nn
(6)III. S
PARSE
C
HANNEL
S
HORTENING
A. Algorithm Derivation
The system block diagram is shown in Fig. 1 where ourgoal is to design the length-(
lN
f
) fractionally-spaced CSE,
W
, and the length-(
N
f
+
ν
) TIR,
b
, which minimize the meansquare of the error signal,
e
k
. In other words, the CSE isto be designed such that the overall impulse response of thechannel,
h
, and the CSE,
W
, best approximates a TIR withfew, namely (
N
b
+ 1
), taps. Then, the ML or MAP detectorsare designed based on the new short TIR. Although the lengthof the TIR vector
b
is (
N
f
+
ν
), only (
N
b
+ 1
) of its tapsare designed to be nonzero. The choice of
N
b
represents aperformance-complexity tradeoff. In [5], the nonzero (
N
b
+1
)taps were chosen to be
contiguous
and their location withinthe (
N
f
+
ν
)-span of
b
was optimized. In this paper, we relaxthe contiguousness constraint and allow the nonzero (
N
b
+1
)taps to be anywhere within the (
N
f
+
ν
)-span. Following thisapproach, we show that better performance can be achievedwithout increasing complexity. From Fig. 1, the error sequence
e
k
is given by [5]
e
k
=
W
H
y
k
:
k
−
N
f
+1
−
b
H
x
k
:
k
−
N
f
−
ν
+1
(7)The MSE is formulated asMSE
ξ
=
E
|
e
k
|
2
=
W
H
R
yy
W
−
W
H
R
yx
b
−
b
H
R
H yx
W
+
b
H
R
xx
b
(8)where
E
[
.
]
and
|
.
|
denote the statistical expectation and theabsolute value, respectively. Minimizing the MSE over
W
bydifferentiating it with respect to (w.r.t)
W
and equating theresult to zero, we get
W
opt
=
R
−
1
yy
R
yx
b
(9)Substituting
W
opt
for
W
in (8), we get
ξ
=
b
H
R
⊥
x/y
b
(10)where
R
⊥
x/y
R
xx
−
R
H yx
R
−
1
yy
R
yx
(11)Minimizing
ξ
over
b
yields the trivial solution
b
= 0
. To avoidthis, we perform the minimization subject to the UTC whereone of the (
N
b
+1
) taps is constrained to be unity. The indexof the unit tap is denoted by
i
(0
≤
i
≤
N
f
+
ν
−
1)
. Now, weaim at designing
b
which minimizes
ξ
such that its nonzerotaps are not constrained to be contiguous unlike [5]. Towardsthis end, we define the Cholesky factorization [16] of
R
⊥
x/y
as
R
⊥
x/y
U
H
U
where
U
is an upper-triangular matrix andrewrite (10) as follows
ξ
=
b
H
U
H
Ub
=
Ub
22
=
¯
U
¯
b
+
u
i
22
(12)where
¯
U
is formed by all the columns of
U
except for the
i
th
column,
u
i
is the
i
th
column of
U
, and
¯
b
is formed by all theelements of
b
except for the
i
th
unity element. Observe thatthe length-(
N
f
+
ν
−
1
) vector
¯
b
contains only
N
b
nonzerotaps whose locations and values need to be determined suchthat
ξ
is minimized. To achieve this goal, we formulate thefollowing convex optimization problem
min
¯
b
¯
b
1
subject to
¯
U
¯
b
+
u
i
2
≤
ch
(13)
3
where minimizing the
l
1
-norm
¯
b
1
is equivalent to find-ing the sparsest solution for
¯
b
as shown in CS theory [8],[9]. Hence, the convex optimization program in (13) can beinterpreted as follows:
Find the locations and values of the taps of the sparsest TIRsuch that the MSE does not exceed a given value, namely,
ch
.Although
¯
U
is not a wide matrix as it is typically the casein CS theory formulations, the concept of minimizing the
l
1
-norm can still be used. Through (13), the design controlsthe performance via
ch
. However, in this case, the designerhas no direct control on the resulting number of nonzerotaps
N
b
. In situations where a specific
N
b
is desired (e.g.due to complexity constraints), the convex program in (13)is solved via one of the matching pursuit (MP) techniques(e.g. orthogonal MP (OMP) [17]) where the desired
N
b
isused along with
¯
U
and
u
i
to compute
¯
b
that best matches
¯
U
¯
b
to
u
i
and, hence, minimizes the MSE,
¯
U
¯
b
+
u
i
22
. Aftercomputing
¯
b
, we construct the sparse TIR, denoted by
b
s
, bysimply inserting the unit tap in the
i
th
location. Finally, theoptimum (in the MMSE sense) CSE taps are determined from(9) to be
W
opt
=
R
−
1
yy
R
yx
b
s
,
(14)and the resulting MMSE is
ξ
min
=
b
H
s
R
xx
b
s
−
b
H
s
R
H yx
R
−
1
yy
R
yx
b
s
.
(15)Note that the unit tap index (
i
) needs to be optimized suchthat the resulting MSE is minimized. However, unlike [5],we do not need to additionally optimize the location (i.e.starting index which is commonly known as the decision delayparameter) of the contiguous taps because we do not constrainthe taps to be contiguous. Instead, we use the convex programin (13) to compute their locations and values.
B. Performance Analysis
In this section, we prove that the MMSE resulting by allow-ing the TIR taps to be noncontiguous is smaller than or equalthe MMSE when they are contiguous. Assume the indices of the nonzero taps are known to be
I
=
{
i,i
1
,i
2
,..,i
N
b
}
. Weform the following Lagrangian cost function to compute theoptimum taps values subject to the UTC
L
=
b
H
R
⊥
x/y
b
+
λ
b
H
e
i,N
f
+
ν
−
1
=
b
H I
R
I
b
I
+
λ
b
H I
e
i
,N
b
+1
−
1
(16)where
b
I
is the vector containing the values of the nonzeroTIR taps,
i
is the unit tap index within
b
I
, and
R
I
is asubmatrix of
R
⊥
x/y
formed by the intersections of the rows andcolumns whose indices are those in
I
. The parameter
λ
is theLagrangian multiplier, and
e
i,N
f
+
ν
and
e
i
,N
b
+1
are the
i
th
and
i
th
columns of
I
N
f
+
ν
and
I
N
b
+1
, respectively. Differentiating
L
w.r.t.
b
I
and setting the result to zero, we get
b
I,
opt
=
R
−
1
I
e
i
,N
b
+1
R
−
1
I
(
i
,i
)
(17)where
R
−
1
I
(
i
,i
)
is the element located in the
i
th
row andthe
i
th
column of
R
−
1
I
. Substituting for
b
I,
opt
in (10), we getthe following MMSEMMSE
=1
R
−
1
I
(
i
,i
)
(18)We observe from (18) that the MMSE is controlled by theindices in
I
. If the indices in
I
are not constrained to becontiguous, then the rows and columns forming
R
I
are alsonot constrained to be contiguous. Due to this extra degree of freedom, the noncontiguous solution enjoys a larger searchspace and, hence, the resulting MMSE will be less than (orat least the same as) the MMSE of the contiguous solution.The search operation is implemented by implicitly solving theconvex optimization program in (13).IV. S
PARSE
E
QUALIZATION
In general, the MMSE CSE,
W
opt
, in (14) is non-sparse, i.e.all the tap weights have nonzero values. Furthermore, longCSEs are needed to achieve a good performance especiallyfor highly dispersive communication channels. This increasesthe complexity of computing and implementing (i.e. filteringthe received signal) non-sparse FIR CSEs. Motivated by theseconsiderations, we propose a sparse implementation for theFIR CSE,
W
, using CS theory. After computing the sparseTIR,
b
s
, we write the MSE as a function of
W
as follows
ξ
(
W
) =
W
H
R
yy
W
−
W
H
R
yx
b
s
:=
q
−
b
H
s
R
H yx
W
+
b
H
s
R
xx
b
s
(19)By defining the Cholesky factorization of
R
yy
as
R
yy
=
LL
H
where
L
is a lower-triangular matrix, we can rewrite (19) as
ξ
(
W
) =
W
H
LL
H
W
−
W
H
LL
−
1
q
−
q
H
L
−
H
L
H
W
+
b
H
s
R
xx
b
s
(20)where
q
is defined in (19) and
(
.
)
−
H
≡
((
.
)
H
)
−
1
. Completingthe squares in (20) yields
ξ
(
W
) =
b
H
s
R
xx
b
s
−
q
H
R
−
1
yy
q
=
ξ
min
in (15)
+
L
H
W
−
L
−
1
q
22
≡
ξ
excess
(
W
)
(21)
W
controls
ξ
(
W
)
only via the term
ξ
excess
(
W
)
because
ξ
min
doesnot depend on
W
. Since
ξ
excess
(
W
)
≥
0
,
ξ
(
W
)
is minimized bychoosing
W
such that
ξ
excess
(
W
) = 0
and, hence,
ξ
(
W
) =
ξ
min
.This yields the MMSE non-sparse solution in (14) where theimplementation complexity is high. On the other hand, anychoice of
W
different from
W
opt
makes
ξ
excess
(
W
)
>
0
whichtranslates into performance degradation (i.e. MSE increases).A practical performance-complexity trade-off can be achievedif we design the sparsest
W
such that
ξ
excess
(
W
)
≤
eqz
where
eqz
controls the acceptable performance loss. According to CStheory, this can be achieved by solving the following convexoptimization program
min
W
s
W
s
1
subject to
L
H
W
s
−
L
−
1
q
22
≤
eqz
(22)Since
L
is a lower-triangular matrix, the vector
L
−
1
q
can beeasily computed using the forward substitution method [16].Note that the optimization programs in (13) and (22) are solvedeach time the CIR estimate is updated.Assuming the input symbols are uncorrelated with the sameenergy
S
x
E
|
x
k
|
2
∀
k
, we define the resulting output (or
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
Recommended
More From This User
Notes
Load more
