You are on page 1of 13

4784

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS, VOL. 8, NO. 9, SEPTEMBER 2009

Decision-Directed Least-Squares Phase Perturbation Compensation in OFDM Systems


Ioannis Dagres, Student Member, IEEE, and Andreas Polydoros, Fellow, IEEE
AbstractA low-complexity decision-directed iterative scheme is proposed for the estimation and mitigation of strong phase noise plus frequency offset in OFDM-modulated signals, transmitted over frequency-selective or frequency-at channels. It is based on a time-domain, windowed least-squares estimation algorithm of the total phase perturbation vector, developed through proper system modeling and optimized so as to minimize the residual inter-carrier interference. An extension of the diagonalloading technique is also introduced in order to enhance the convergence of the algorithm in high-SNR regimes. The resulting scheme outperforms previously proposed approaches in terms of achievable error rate in the data-detection stage while, in the channel-estimation stage, it attains performance near the Cramer-Rao bound with comparatively smaller computational complexity. Index TermsOrthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM), phase noise (PHN), channel estimation, least squares (LS), frequency offset.

I. I NTRODUCTION RTHOGONAL frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) systems operating in strong levels of phasenoise (PHN) and frequency offset (FO) are known to suffer from signicant performance degradation due to the high levels of total-phase perturbation (TPP) induced inter-carrier interference (ICI), a fact which limits their achievable performance [1][6] and thus makes the use of higherorder constellations for increased transmission throughput infeasible. Scenarios of strong phase errors are becoming of importance due to recent interest in millimeter-wave low-cost radios [7], [8]. In high frequencies, phase-related errors are more pronounced because the effect of a noisy oscillator grows with the square of the carrier frequency. In the world of Dirty RF as described in [9], new digital signal processing techniques are needed to deal with higher levels of impairments, thus relaxing the requirements on future RF sub-systems. In such strongly phase-impaired scenarios, typical solutions (e.g., [10][12]) that only address the correction of
Manuscript received October 24, 2008; revised April 10, 2008; accepted May 29, 2009. The associate editor coordinating the review of this paper and approving it for publication was J. Coon. This work has been performed in the framework of the project EPEAEK II - PYTHAGORAS II - Support to Research Groups in Universities, co-funded by the European Social Fund and Greek National Resources. The material of this paper was presented in part at the 10th IEEE International Symposium on Spread Spectrum Techniques and Applications (ISSSTA), Bologna, Italy, August 2008. I. Dagres is with the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Patras, Patra, Greece (e-mail: jdagres@phys.uoa.gr). A. Polydoros is with the Department of Physics, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece. Digital Object Identier 10.1109/TWC.2009.081420

the common-phase rotation (CPR) are not adequate. More elaborate phase-process estimation and compensation methods are needed, namely those that also target the ICI effect. Several such methods have already been proposed in the literature for PHN and FO estimation and compensation in both the data-detection stage (DDS) and the channel-estimation stage (CES). In [13], two decision-directed approaches are proposed employing the maximum likelihood (ML) as well as the linear minimum mean square error (LMMSE) criteria for the estimation of the ICI terms at the DDS. The LMMSE approach has shown to provide good performance at the cost of computational complexity. A lower-complexity LMMSE estimator was proposed in [14] targeting the higher-energy ICI terms in the DDS. In [15], a scheme for estimating the channel and initial frequency offset (IFO) in the presence of PHN was proposed using training symbols. It was shown that channel estimation close to the respective Cramer-Rao bound (CRB) is feasible at all SNRs of interest. In [16], a systematic probabilistic framework was presented that allows for joint estimation of data symbols plus PHN. A key difference of this last work with respect to those based on hard decisions is the use of probability distributions for the data (i.e., soft decisions). In this paper, a parameterized windowed least-squares (WLS) estimator is proposed via proper system modeling applied to both estimation stages. The window is optimized so as to minimize a newly introduced metric, namely the average post-compensation error variance (A-PCEV) of the residual phase. It will be shown that A-PCEV is the dominant term of the residual (e.g., post-compensation) ICI and thus determines system performance. It will be analytically computed for arbitrary phase-error models and closed-form expressions for near-optimal windows will be derived for zeromean FO, Wiener and rst-order autoregressive PHN models, respectively. Furthermore, the diagonal-loading approach (proposed in [17] for providing robustness to a general class of estimators in the presence of model mismatch) will be employed to enhance convergence of the iterative estimation scheme, in those high-SNR regions where the effect of data decision errors dominates performance. In addition, channel, IFO estimation and data equalization will also be based on the same types of LS estimators already proposed for nonPHN systems, thus keeping the overall system complexity low. A high-SNR approximation of the variance of the LS estimator for the initial FO is also provided, which variance characterizes the level of the residual frequency offset (RFO). The time-domain LMMSE estimator (proposed in [13] in the frequency domain), is generalized for the case of PHN plus FO by computing and exploiting their combined statistics.

c 2009 IEEE 1536-1276/09$25.00

DAGRES and POLYDOROS: DECISION-DIRECTED LEAST-SQUARES PHASE PERTURBATION COMPENSATION IN OFDM SYSTEMS

4785

To summarize, the contributions of this paper are: (a) the introduction of a particular time-domain model for the TPP, which is then applied to the sequence of unknown phases in the observed total record; (b) the development of an LS estimator (applicable to different models of the phase perturbations), based on the modeling approach of (a) above; (c) an elaborate but eventually simple procedure for optimizing the associated window upon which the estimator of (b) is based; and (d), an improvement (iterations combined with diagonal loading) that enhance further the performance of the estimator of (b). The main value of this collective procedure is uniformly near-optimal performance in CES (as assessed by respective bounds) and better performance than competitive schemes in DDS, both achieved with comparatively low computational complexity (as assessed by the complexity of other referenced methods). This paper is organized as follows: the standard OFDM system model is described in Section II, while the proposed alternative in Section III. The conventional and the proposed estimators are introduced in Section IV. In Section V, the APCEV is derived analytically as a function of the window parameters. Additionally, closed-form expressions for nearoptimal window parameters are derived and its accuracy are quantied via performance assessment. Section VI describes the application of the proposed estimator on an iterative LSbased OFDM scheme. Section VII outlines the diagonalloading technique and its incorporation in the iterative phaseestimation process, along with the algorithmic steps of the proposed scheme. Some complexity considerations are provided in Section VIII. Simulations results are presented in Section IX, followed by conclusions in Section X. Notation: denotes element-wise multiplication; () , () and () denote conjugation, transpose and Hermitian transpose, respectively; E [] and Var [] denotes for the expected value and the variance operators with respect to the probability destiny function (pdf) of the random variable (R.V.) , respectively (when (:) is used it corresponds to the joint pdf of all R.V.s involved in the operand); Im{} and Re{} are the imaginary and the real part operators respectively; 1 and 0 are the all-ones and the all zero vectors respectively; (0, ) and (0, ) are real and circularly symmetric complex Gaussian random vectors with mean 0 and correlation matrix ( ) , respectively; 2 , 2 is a chi-square R.V. with variance 2 and degrees of freedom; upper-case bold letters represent matrices while lower-case bold letters represent vectors (sizes are specically dened if not obvious); ( ), is the (, )th element of a matrix , and is the th element of vector ; the exponentiated form of the real-valued vector is dened as [exp (1 ) , ..., exp ( )] ; diag{} is the diagonal matrix with the elements of vector on its diagonal. denotes the correlation matrix of a vector . II. S TANDARD OFDM S YSTEM M ODEL The symbol vector of length , normalized in power and assumed uncorrelated so that E{ } = , is transmitted over the sub-carriers of the OFDM block. After an -point unitary IDFT at the transmitter the output is serialized, a cyclic prex extension of length CP is added and the signal is sent to the

channel. At the receiver, after removing the cyclic prex, the received sampled signal can be represented in vector notation as (1) = diag{ } + where , is the unitary DFT matrix of length , = diag{ ( } where ) is the channels frequency 2 response, 0, is the additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN) vector and is the exponentiated TPP vector. The latter can be written as = + + CP 1 (2)

with the PHN angle vector, = the FO vector describing the initial or residual, depending on whether the channel or the data estimation stage is considered, is the normalized FO with 0.5, = (2/ )[1, 2, ..., ] , and nally CP is the initial uncompensated total phase rotation. After a DFT on the received sampled sequence, (1) becomes = (0) + ICI + (3)

where = , is the frequency representation of (also white), ICI is the inter-carrier noise vector whose th element is [14] ICI = with () =
=1,= ( )

(4)

1 2(1)/ =1

(5)

We note/that, as per (5), (0) is the CPR. The system SNR is 2 2 s . Two important PHN types exist [5]: one results from a system that is only frequency-locked and the other from its phased-locked counterpart. For frequency-locked systems, the Wiener model is employed [2], where the PHN process is a sampled version of a continuous-time Wiener process. The PHN vector is = th sample value of the discrete-time ) ( 2 . The (, )th element of the 1 + , where = 0, correlation matrix of and its exponentiated vector ) ( PHN 2 2 are min{, } (assuming 0 = 0) and exp /2 respectively. For phase-locked systems, the Gaussian PHN model is typically used, where is modeled as a stationary random process. The (, )th element of the discrete-time correlation matrix is equal to ( ), where is the sampling period of the continuous-time autocorrelation function (). A rst-order autoregressive model will be used, described by the recursive equation = 1 + , where dened as in the Wiener model. The (, )th element of the corresponding correlation matrices of and , assuming 2 < steady state conditions, /1 2 and ( 1 and ) are 2 2 exp (1 )/(1 ) , respectively. Note that the rst-order model is the same as the one used in [15] and [16] after appropriate choice of system parameters. The normalized FO is assumed to be a uniform R.V. (, ), > 0 with 2 = 2 /3. In the case of IFO, can be set to the worst case expected while, for RFO, depends on the performance of the employed IFO estimation algorithm (since RFO is the residual

4786

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS, VOL. 8, NO. 9, SEPTEMBER 2009

of this initial estimation step). The discrete-time correlation matrices of and are
2 ( ), = (2/ )2

(6)

and ( ),

sin(() 2 ) () 2

, = , =

(7)

IV. P ROPOSED E STIMATOR Standard OFDM systems consider only the CPR part for estimation and correction. The LS-CPR estimator proposed in [10] and [19] is a robust solution with respect to the achievable BER (for moderate phase perturbations) and is given by ) ( (0) = , / ( ) 2 (13)

respectively. Eq. (6) applies to all zero-mean FO models with 2 . variance III. A LTERNATIVE S YSTEM M ODEL R EPRESENTATION The purpose of this Section is the proposition of a proper description model for the received sample sequence, different from (1), which allows for low-complexity LS-based estimation of the TPP vector. Precisely, different instantiations of a time-domain model are applied to the data record. Each instantiation targets a specic (say, the th ) element of this TPP vector, which is viewed as a CPR to all received samples (but dependent on ). Thus, targeting , can be rewritten as = 1 + () + () (8)

where = + + as dened in (2), () 1 and () 1. Using (8), together with the small-angle approximation 1 + for () + (), (1) becomes
n n = + ( ) + ( ) +

The () operator dened in (13) is a function of an observation vector (in this case, ), further conditioned on another parameter vector (in this case, ) plus a set of indices (in this case, ). As it is well known, this LS solution also satises a number of other criteria (e.g., maximum likelihood, etc.) for classic linear parameter estimation under white noise (which is the case in [10] under appropriate, valid approximations). The set = {1 , 2 , ..., } represents either pilot-bearing sub-carrier indices (in a pilot-based estimation mode) or databearing sub-carrier indices (in a decision-directed mode) or a combination of both. As mentioned, however, in environments with strong phase perturbations, an estimation and compensation procedure addressing the TPP vector is necessary. Using the statistics derived in Section II, the time-domain LMMSE estimator can be shown to be [20], ( ) 1 2 (14) = + with = diag{ } and = since PHN and FO can be safely assumed independent. The computational burden of this solution is related to solving an order- system of equations, which can be prohibitive. Decisiondirected schemes employing the LMMSE criterion for PHN only estimation, were proposed in [13] and [14]. In [13], the frequency-domain equivalent of (14) has been proposed, where the PHN Fourier coefcients (i.e., the Fourier transform of ) were estimated. The proposed LS estimator below (see (15)) attempts to capture the best elements of the two previous estimators, i.e. the low-complexity aspect of the CPR estimator of (13) yet applied to the richer problem of TPP estimation as per (14). To proceed, we rst note the duality existing between the frequency-domain model in (3) and the time-domain alternative model we propose in (9). We emphasize that this duality pertains to each component of the TPP vector, and that the exact same modeling approximating arguments as in the derivation of (13) can be employed. Consequently, a windowparameterized LS estimator is adopted and optimized. Let () { - (), ..., + + ()} be the set of (- ()+ + ()+1) time-contiguous sample indices around , namely a window within which the estimation of the th phase element will be conned. In accordance with the above arguments, the proposed time-domain WLS estimator for is chosen as ( , ( )) (15) It is parameterized by (), to be optimized later. It can be proved, using the statistics derived in Appendices B-C, that [ its conditional mean E ] = , i.e., it is an unbiased estimator with a corresponding estimation noise R.V. given by total = ( n () + n () + , ()) (16)

(9)

n where n () ( ) and ( ) ( ). The superscript n denotes noise, since these terms are treated as such in the estimation process. The proposed model is parameterized by and is linear in . Naturally, the accuracy of the model decreases for samples far away from due to the adoption of the small-angle approximation but, as will be shown later, only samples close to will be used by the proposed estimator at SNRs of interest. The statistics of () and () will now be derived, since they are necessary for the optimization of the proposed estimator. Using (6), it can be shown that () is zero-mean with

) ( 2 2 () , = (2/ ) ( )( )

(10)

Furthermore, the statistics of () are determined by the employed PHN model: for a Wiener-type PHN, it contains samples of two ) different Wiener processes, resulting in () ( 0, () with 2 min{ , }, , < ) ( 2 min{ , }, , > () , = 0 otherwise (11)

( ) For the Gaussian PHN model, again () 0, () with ) ( R() , = (0) + ( ) ( ) ( ) (12)

DAGRES and POLYDOROS: DECISION-DIRECTED LEAST-SQUARES PHASE PERTURBATION COMPENSATION IN OFDM SYSTEMS

4787

We repeat that the estimator in (15) is of the same operator form as in (13), but the estimator now pertains to the new timedomain model of (9) for each time sample . The parameters - (), + () will dene a feasible window () if they satisfy the following boundary conditions: 0 - () < and 0 + () (17)

place on a frame-by-frame basis. For the per-symbol case, (21) can be computed as (see Appendix B) ) ( 2 2 4 R()+() , /4 + Var [ ] =
() ()

()

)2
2

It is interesting to note that, for - () = 1 and + () = , (0) for every ( = 1... ), namely the TPP = estimator reduces to the classic CPR estimator. For - () = + () = 0, this TPP estimator reduces to the ML estimator proposed in [13]. Furthermore, the above expressions assume a known (or estimated sufciently accurately) either in CES or DDS; details about the practical estimation of in a decision-directed manner will be given in Section VI. Because of the exponentiated form of the TPP, only the real angle = arg ( ) of the complex R.V. is of interest in the phase-compensation process. Each time-domain sample is derotated via a multiplication by exp ( ). Thus, the residual phase error for sample after this phase compensation is
= arg ( )) = arg ( exp ( ( ) )

(18)

In Appendix A, the post-compensation (residual) total ICI power level is approximated by the power of the average residual phase error. Because the estimator is unbiased this power level equals the A-PCEV, i.e.,
2 ICI 1 Var [ ] =1

(23) ( ( ( ) ) ) where ()+ () , = () , + () , . To solve (22) using (23) for a given (and for every ) requires integerprogramming techniques (applied for every OFDM symbol separately). It can be expected to result in better performance comparing to the per-frame scenario since the estimated value of is exploited precisely, but it suffers from prohibitive computational complexity. We thus focus instead on the perframe scenario where the computation of (21) is based on approximate statistics of . In the following sub-Section A, closed-form expressions for all the three terms of (21) are provided based on the approximate statistics of . In order to avoid a numerical procedure for (22), a closed-form solution for a near-optimal window is derived in sub-Section B. In subSection C, the accuracy of the analysis, the quality of the ICI approximation and of the proposed solutions are assessed by simulations in frequency at and frequency-selective channels. A. Analytic derivation of PCEV Initially, closed-form expressions for the three terms of (21) are derived. The following results are expressed as functions of - , + (we drop the index for convenience), due to the symmetry of the statistics around ; however, must be accounted for since it denes the boundary conditions (17) for - (), + (). We will refer to the unconstrained PCEV ) ( when 2 the (17) is not taken into account. Modeling as 0, , accurate for frequency at channel, then (see Appendix C) [ ] = Var LS and [ ] Var LS = 2 )2
2

(19)

We will refer to (19) as the A-PCEV criterion. It will be employed to optimize (15) in order to minimize the residual ICI, since minimal ICI (when modeled as noise) means optimal performance in both CES and DDS regimes. V. O PTIMUM W INDOW We now address the optimal window under this A-PCEV criterion. A small-angle approximation for in (18) under the proposed estimator, when ( 1 ), is { } Im ( (20) ) Using (15),(16) and (20), the post-compensation error variance (PCEV) of is, [ ] [ ] [ LS ] Var [ ] Var LS + Var LS + Var (21)
LS LS where LS , and are R.Vs resulting from the imaginary part of the ( , ()) operator on , () and (), respectively. To nd the optimal window (for each ) we seek to solve } { 1 arg min Var [ ] (22) (- (), + ()) = - (){0,...1} + (){0,..., } =1

1 ,1 2 1 -,+

(24)

)2 ( ,3 2,2 1,1 2,1 2,1 + 6 + 2 + 3 43 (25) -,+ -,+ -,+ +,+ -,( )( ) 1,1 1,1 12 -,+ + 1 -,+ + 2

1 ,2 1 ,2 1 ,2 (- )1 + (+ )2 . Then and are with -,+ +,+ -,LS dened similarly. As for , the answer depends on the model,

,2 ,1 2 [ LS ] 3,3 + 32 + 21 -,+ ( -,+ )-,+ ( ) Var = 3 1,1 + 1 1,1 + 2 -,+ -,+

(26)

for Wiener, and [ LS ] = 0 + Var + 0 2 =( ) + ,1 1 -,+ + 1

To solve (22), closed-form expressions for (21) must be derived. The computation of (21) depends on the prevailing scenario, since can either be assumed known (estimated sufciently) when the computation takes place on a symbolby-symbol basis (that is, is channel- and data-dependent), or can be modeled as stochastic when the computation takes

=- ,=0, =- ,=0

( )( ) ,1 ,1 1 1 -,+ + 1 -,+ + 2

(27)

4788

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS, VOL. 8, NO. 9, SEPTEMBER 2009


2

for Gaussian with = ( ). Other cases can be computed via Appendix C by means of the corresponding statistics. We note that (25) holds not only for uniform but also for any arbitrary zero-mean FO. B. Closed-form approximate solution of (22) Having derived all the required terms, the optimal window can, in principle, be computed numerically [21]. In order to further reduce complexity, a closed-form solution will be derived for solving (22) following a two step procedure: First, a near-optimum window that minimizes the unconstrained PCEV will be computed. This window will be used for all those (centered appropriately around each ) which satisfy the boundary conditions (17), whereas for those edge values of not satisfying (17) a heuristic approach will be adopted. As shown in Appendix D, the unconstrained PCEV is minimized by a symmetric window parameterized by if the search is restricted to odd-length windows (of total length 2 + 1). So, a near-optimum window can be found (near optimum since we are not considering even-sized windows) in the solution space of symmetric windows. This near-optimum ] can [ window LS ( ) and be easily computed in closed form since Var [ LS ] Var () (see Appendix D for related denitions) can be approximated by linear expressions. Eq. (25) can be written as ] [ 2 2 (28) Var LS () (2/ ) ( + ) while (26) and (27) as [ LS ] 2 Var () ( + )

10

=0.1
SNR=15dB

2 =0.001

ICI power

10

2=0.0001

SNR=25dB
10
4

APCEV analysis APCEV simulation (AWGN) APCEV simulation (Rayleigh) APCEV lower bound analysis ICI simulation (Rayleigh)
2

10

15

20

25

30

Symmetric Window Length (L)

Fig. 1. ICI and A-PCEV performance of the WLS estimator for Wiener PHN 2 = 103 and 104 ; SNR=15dB and 25dB; = 0.1, as a function with of the symmetric window length.

C. A-PCEV simulations Simulations regarding the A-PCEV under the assumptions of perfectly known channel and data where conducted and are shown in Figs. 1-3. The simulations conrm: a) the accuracy of the analytic derivations of Section A above for the PCEV; b) the quality of the approximation of (19) as a function of the residual ICI insofar as it leads to a good-quality optimalwindow determination; c) the performance loss due to the adoption of a symmetric window (curtailed at the edges) when compared to the fully optimal window; d) the accuracy of the practical solution using (30),(31) when compared to the optimal symmetric window that would result from solving (22) numerically with the aid of (24)-(27). The simulation parameters are: 128 sub-carriers, 16-QAM constellation and CP = 10 samples. The frequency-selective channel corresponds to a Rayleigh channel impulse response with exponential decay power delay prole of length CP . 2 , and its dominant In Fig. 1, the residual ICI power, ICI term, A-PCEV, are plotted for the proposed estimator as a of (31). The Afunction of the symmetric window length PCEV is both plotted analytically (using Section A) as well as simulated for the AWGN and Rayleigh channels. The lower bound on A-PCEV, resulting from the numerical solution of (22) is also shown. The parameter values used for the simulations are shown in the respective legends. The results conrm the validity of the theoretical analysis for the A-PCEV in both AWGN and Rayleigh environments. Precisely, the results for AWGN are in agreement with the analysis, while a very small deviation is noticed for the Rayleigh case, as expected. The fact that A-PCEV is the dominant term of the ICI (and thus qualies the use of (19)) is also conrmed since the ICI follows the same shape as A-PCVE, thus justifying its use in the determination of the optimal-window length. Finally, the results also conrm that near-optimal performance (in comparison to the optimal-window choice) can be achieved via the symmetric-window approach: this symmetric window exhibits negligible performance degradation versus the optimal

(29)

In (28) and (29), linear approximations involving have been employed, with , , , , appropriately chosen parameters. For Wiener and zero-mean FO we choose = = 1/6 (constant terms are ignored in the minimization procedure). For the rst-order Gaussian model, a linear approximation can be used, depending on the value of . For > 0.9 we choose = 0.17. With the help of the above linear approximations and temporarily treating as a continuous-valued parameter, the unconstrained PCEV conned to symmetrical windows, is minimized when 1 = ( ) 2 + (2/ )2 2 2 (30)

An approximate solution for the near-optimal, symmetric window for the unconstrained version of (22) is - = + = where is the integer closest to and greater or equal to one. Thus, the proposed near-optimal solution for (21) is 1} and + () = min{, } - () = min{, (31)

does not satisfy (17), the heuristic For those where approach is to clip the window at the boundary values (namely 1 and ). In conclusion, the proposed estimator is given by (15), using (31) for the parameters of the TPPrelated window, while compensation is performed in the classic way: by multiplying each sample in the time domain with exp ( ).

DAGRES and POLYDOROS: DECISION-DIRECTED LEAST-SQUARES PHASE PERTURBATION COMPENSATION IN OFDM SYSTEMS

4789

SNR=20dB, =0
2=0.01 APCEV analysis APCEV simulation (AWGN) APCEV simulation (Rayleigh) APCEV lower bound analysis 2 simulation (Rayleigh) ICI 2=0.001

is either exactly equal to the one computed by the A-PCEV metric or is equal to one sample less, which means that a near-optimal window value which minimizes the ICI power is practically guaranteed. VI. U NKNOWN C HANNEL AND DATA In the derivation of the proposed estimator, the exact value of was assumed to be known whereas in practice it has to be estimated. In a decision-directed scheme, is estimated iteratively, where at each step the previously estimated vector is used for phase-compensation and then fresh data/channel decisions are taken at the subsequent step and used, in turn, in order to update the estimate. At the th iteration, the phasecompensated samples in the frequency domain are ) ) ( ( () = diag{exp (32) () } () where () is the argument of the estimated exponentiated TPP vector at the th iteration (other parameters are dened accordingly). In CES, a known OFDM symbol is transmitted (a preamble). Let be the preamble symbol of unit modulus and the channel impulse-response vector of length CP . The LS channel estimator, assuming perfect phase recovery (equivalent to the ML estimator derived in [15]) is 1 () = () (33)

10

ICI power
10
3

2 =0.0001

10

15

20

25

30

Symmetric Window Length (L)

Fig. 2. ICI and A-PCEV performance of WLS estimator for Gaussian PHN 2 = 102 , 103 and 104 , SNR=20dB, and = 0, as a with = 0.9, function of the symmetric window length.

20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13

APCEV Analysis APCEV Simulation (Rayleigh) APCEV Approximation (30) ICI Simulation (Rayleigh)

Optimized L

SNR=15dB

=0.1

12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 4 10 10
3

SNR=20dB

SNR=30dB

PHN variance (Wiener)

Fig. 3. Optimized symmetric window length as a function of the PHN variance via analysis and simulation.

(the latter expressed by the A-PCEV lower bound). The reason for this slight degradation, which is mainly observed when the optimal is large and the number of edge (clipped) samples is also large, is basically the FO term; the last term of the nominator in (25) increases due to the asymmetry of the clipped windows. In Fig. 2, similar scenarios as in Fig. 1 are plotted, but now for Gaussian PHN with = 0.9 and a xed SNR of 20dB, with no FO. The simulation results again conrm the analysis, while (31) provides answers very close to the optimal solution even for large (as expected due to the absence of FO). In Fig. 3, the optimized symmetric window length is shown as a function of PHN via simulation plus analysis. Three SNR values are chosen, with the FO xed at 0.1. The analysis of Section A is always in agreement with the A-PCEV simulations. The continuous-valued version of suboptimal closed-form solution of (30) is also shown. It is close to the analytic numerical solution for small window lengths, while it deviates slightly for larger window lengths (again, due to the FO). The optimized length based on the simulated ICI

where = diag{} and is an CP matrix containing the rst CP columns of such that = diag { }. With (0) = 0, it is clear that the estimated channel incorporates the CPR of (3) since it was not compensated at the rst step. This irresolvable rotation would still exist even if the phase was estimated rst, as shown in [15] where an analytic discussion can be found on this matter. It does not cause any performance degradation since it is removed by the equalization step. In Section IX, it is taken into account when simulating the channel-estimation MSE performance. After the last iteration the estimated TPP is used for IFO estimation. Since the CPR is incorporated into the channel model, the estimated phase is + + error = arg ( ) = (34)

, where is the estimation error and are the resulting phase and FO vectors after the removal of their samle mean values. We caution here that the implementation of the argument operator of (34) must take into account possible absolute phase jumps greater than . In that case, the phases must be unwrapped to their 2 complement. Using the LS t approach, proposed in [18] for systems without PHN, the IFO estimate is given by = ( , {1, ..., }) (35) where = ( + 1/ ). The RFO level is determined by the estimation error variance of (35). An approximation can >> be computed when error , / RFO (36)

4790

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS, VOL. 8, NO. 9, SEPTEMBER 2009

can be shown after some algebra to be The statistics of ( ), = ( ), + 1 + 2 1


(

=1 =1 =1

( ), + ( ),

) (37)

( ),

For Wiener PHN, a closed-form expression can be shown to be ( ) 1 1 2 + + ( ), = min {, } + 3 6 2 (38) (2 + 1) + (2 + 1) 2 This approximation is very accurate in the high SNR regions, as will be shown via simulations in Section IX. Therefore, it will also be used as a proxy for the RFO variance in DDS for determining the optimal window. In cases where the original IFO variance is smaller than (36), it is better to simply use a zero estimate for the IFO. In DDS, the channel is assumed known (estimated sufciently at CES), while initial data decisions are made assuming (0)1, i.e., data detection with CPR removal only as (0) = performed in [10]. IFO estimated at CES is assumed already removed. In subsequent steps, hard decisions are made using the LS estimates (LS equalization) of the data:
() f , {}) = (y () h

(39)

In both DDS and CES, the major step that facilitates initialization and, therefore, convergence, is the effective annulment of the CPR. In the DDS mode this happens explicitly since CPR is pre-compensated, whereas in CES this happens via the incorporation of the CPR into the composite channel model. VII. I MPROVING ROBUSTNESS The estimator developed so far assumed perfect channel state information (CSI) and data decisions. This effectively amounts to a model mismatch because the statistics of the received observation are actually computed based on occasionally erroneous CSI or data decisions, something that will adversely affect performance in the high-SNR region where decision errors due to ICI tend to dominate over thermal-noise effects. The robustness of general estimators under model mismatch has been studied in [17]. When interference is present but is not accounted for in the design process, an estimator can be made more robust when its parameters are selected based on a hypothesized lower SNR value than the true prevailing SNR. This is called diagonal loading because it is equivalent to increasing the diagonal elements of the received sample covariance matrix by inserting a higher-level white noise. This needed lower SNR was chosen heuristically in [17], but is always proportional to the power of the interfering signal therefore, interpreted as a signal to interference plus noise ratio (SINR). In adopting this approach for the proposed scheme, the only additional parameter to be calculated is the extra white noise level that shall be injected in the calculation of the optimal window size. The degradation in OFDM performance in DDS under PHN-induced ICI with CPR removal only, has

been studied in [14] and [19]. All such approaches model the ICI as an additional white noise term with power determined by the statistics of the PHN. Generalizing those results, by including the FO perturbation, it is straightforward to show that 2 = 1 1 1/ 2 (40) ICI /( 2 ) 2 2 2 . with the SINR is given by ICI (1 ICI ) + ICI Thus, by knowing the TPP statistics, one can approach the calculation of system performance as pertaining to a system without phase errors but with a lower operating SNR. In other words, a white interfering signal can effectively model the performance degradation due to ICI. Following the diagonal loading approach, () can then be chosen based on the SINR, as opposed to the SNR. In most cases, a conservative upper bound on the extra noise level is adequate. In CES, only a small portion of the ICI affects the estimates due to the small dimensionality of the channel; thus, marginal performance degradation is expected due to model mismatch. In order to improve the convergence of the estimator we may choose the SNR of each intermediate iterative step so as to somehow mirror the decrease in model mismatch due to better successive data decisions or estimated CSI. This can be done by using the actual SINR at the rst iteration, whereas at the very last step only the white noise is taken into account, namely the system SNR. The intermediate SNR values are heuristically computed via a linear interpolation between the two extreme values in logarithmic scale. The algorithmic steps of the WLS-based OFDM scheme are summarized in Table I, where iter denotes the number of iterations. The estimatedIFO removal step is not included since it is common to all schemes. VIII. C OMPUTATIONAL C OMPLEXITY In DDS, the computational difference between the WLS and the LMMSE is due to the different expressions in estimating the exponentiated TPP vector in (15) and (14), respectively. For the WLS, since closed-form expressions for computing the symmetric window length exist, and the nominator of the LS is sufcient for the determination of its argument, what needs to be computed is (see Table I, Step B, line 6) ( (1) ) () , = 1.. (41) =
() ()

where the upper index denotes the iteration number. Let computed symmetric window length. If we dene o be the ) ( ( 1) (requiring complex multiplications) () = o () and 1 = =1 (requiring o complex additions), each () term can be computed recursively:
()

= 1 1 + +1 , = 2...

()

()

()

(42)

with = 0 for 1 > > . Thus, o non-zero elements of () are added and o non-zero elements of are subtracted in the total recursion loop, thus leading to total complex multiplications, complex additions and o complex subtractions for each iteration, which mean a total complexity of O( ). In comparison, the LMMSE requires the solution of an order- system of equations

DAGRES and POLYDOROS: DECISION-DIRECTED LEAST-SQUARES PHASE PERTURBATION COMPENSATION IN OFDM SYSTEMS

4791

TABLE I WLS BASED OFDM SCHEME

3.5

Step A) Initialization [CES/DES]


SNR degradation

1: Compute ICI from PHN and [CFO/RFO Bound (36)] 2: for = 1 to iter 3: 4: () = ICI + ( 1)(sys ICI )/(iter 1) Compute () () from (30),(31) using ()

2.5

CPE LS ICM 1it ICM 2it WLS 1it WLS 2it WLS 4it WLS 8it LMMSE 1it LMMSE 2it LMMSE 4it LMMSE 8it

5: end Step B) For every [preamble/symbol] , i.e. [CES/DES] [ / ] (0) = 0 (0) = (0)1 1: Compute (0) (32) assuming / ] [ (0) from (33) (0) from (0) , (39) 2: Compute 3: for = 1 : iter 4: 5: 6: 7: 8: 9: Compute
(1)

1.5

0.5

(1) and from


() ()

[ / ] (1)

10

10

10

Wiener PHN variance

for = 1 : end
()

= arg

( ) (1)

Fig. 4. SNR degradation for attaining BER of 102 for various schemes (AWGN)

(32) using Compute [ / ] () Compute from (33) () from () , (39)

()

()

10: end 11: Compute (35) from (iter ) (34) [ / ] ( ) = iter = (iter ) 12: Output

is order O( ), with total complexity O(iter (log(N )+ CP ) ). In comparison, the modied JCPCE scheme of [15] for joint channel/FO/PHN estimation requires the solution of an order-/2 system for IFO estimation and an order- for PHN estimation, respectively, therefore a total complexity of O( 3 ). Sub-optimal conjugate-gradient approaches have also been proposed, leading to O( log(N )) complexity. IX. S IMULATION R ESULTS

for the same term, therefore O( 3 ) (in each iteration). All other computations such as argument operations, FFT, and hard decisions are identical for both algorithms. Thus, since the main computational burden of WLS is the FFT, the total complexity O (iter log ( )), whereas ) ( is of order for LMMSE it is O iter 3 . The iterative conditional mode (ICM) algorithm of [16] has the nice property of avoiding successive data decisions but its complexity is also dictated by the same need to solve an order- system (for each soft iteration). An iterative sub-optimal conjugate-gradient approach has been proposed therein, which needs approximately 8 iterations (for solving this system of equations inside each soft iteration) in order to converge (for medium PHN). Even this suboptimal approach incurs a complexity higher than WLS. The algorithm proposed in [14] can indeed trade complexity with performance: its computational burden is the solution of an order (2 + 1) system, where is the number of the estimated ICI terms in the frequency domain. Schemes with complexity lower than the proposed can be derived but, as will be shown later, the WLS outperforms even the full-order LMMSE (hence, even more so for reducedperformance schemes). The ML [13] scheme requires the same complexity as the proposed one (since can be derived as a special case of WLS), but it is inferior in performance by all methods. The computational complexity involved in the CES is not a critical factor as in DDS, since it consumes a small portion of the total system complexity (due to the small number of symbols involved). Regarding WLS, the LS channel estimation is of order O(CP ) and the FO estimation

In this Section, the performance of the proposed scheme will be evaluated and compared with previously proposed schemes. Both at and frequency-selective channel models (specied in Section V) will be considered in order to assess the robustness of the algorithms under different channel conditions. The algorithms chosen for comparison purposes for the DDS are the ICM of [16] and the LMMSE of [13]. The latter can also be viewed as a special case (full-order estimation) of the one in [14]. As mentioned, the ICM algorithm performs joint data and PHN detection, whereas [13] derives the LMMSE phase estimates via hard decisions on the data. Since both require matrix inversions, iterative modications have been proposed that converge with a few iterations. In the simulations below, full-matrix inversion is used for both methods in each iteration so as to achieve their full potential. For the CES, the modied JCPCE is used for comparison. For initial CPR estimation, the LS pilot-based approach proposed of [10] is used, i.e., (13) with indicating the pilot indices. The system simulation parameters are the same as in Section V, using 10 pilot sub-carriers to ensure near-optimal CPR estimation. A. Performance assessment in DDS with perfect CSI (PHN only) In Fig. 4, the SNR degradation (versus a non-TPP system) corresponding to a BER of 102 is shown for AWGN, 16QAM, Wiener PHN, zero RFO and perfect CSI. The non-TPP SNR is 13.9 dB. ICM is shown for 2 iterations because its performance does not improve with further iterations. The

4792

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS, VOL. 8, NO. 9, SEPTEMBER 2009

SNR degradation

Channel MSE

CPR LS ICM 2it WLS 1it WLS 2it WLS 4it WLS 8it LMMSE 1it LMMSE 4it

10

10

CRLB Modified JCPCE WLS 2 iter WLS 3 iter WLS 4 iter LS (PHN only)

15

20

25

30

35

10

Gaussian PHN variance ( =0.99)

10

SNR (dB)

Fig. 5. SNR degradation for attaining BER of 102 for various schemes (Rayleigh)
3

Fig. 7.

Channel MSE estimation performance with PHN and IFO

10

2=0.001

=0.0001 10
4

2 =0.00001

10

Modified Moose LS approximation LS


10
6

=0

10

15

20

25

30

35

SNR dB

Fig. 6.

Performance of the LS IFO estimation at different levels of PHN.

performance of WLS and LMMSE is shown for 1,2,4 and 8 iterations. We observe that LMMSE performs a bit worse than WLS for the same number of iterations. For SNR degradations less than 1dB, WLS extends the robustness to PHN by nearly one order of magnitude in terms of the PHN variance that 2 < 103 , a choice can be handled by the system. For of 2 iterations is a good trade-off between performance gain and complexity. Fig. 5 repeats the previous comparisons but now for a Rayleigh channel with 64-QAM and Gaussian PHN (a = 0.99). The non-TPP SNR is 26.1 dB. WLS again outperforms LMMSE and ICM. It achieves the same performance as LMMSE with roughly half the iterations. ICM again does not improve after two iterations. B. Performance assessment in CES The performance of the LS IFO estimation is shown in Fig. 6 for a Rayleigh channel, 16QAM, Gaussian PHN (a = 0.96) and IFO of = 0.5. The approximation of (36) follows quite accurately the performance of the proposed estimator in the high-SNR region (above 20dB or so). The performance of the

modied Moose IFO estimator of [15] is also shown. It is derived by modifying the estimator of [22] so as to take into account the PHN. It is better in the low-SNR region, but it is quite close to the proposed LS estimator in the high-SNR region. We note, however, that in addition to the computational complexity of an order-(/2) system, this scheme requires a very specic pilot structure since half of the sub-carriers of the preamble should carry pilots (other half must be zero). Finally, we note that since both estimators are not of Bayesian nature, their performance is dictated by the PHN level in the high-SNR region (regardless the prior IFO statistics). Fig. 7 examines the performance of the proposed scheme in the CES for 2-4 iterations. The parameters are: Rayleigh channel, 2 = 103 and IFO of 0.5. The 16QAM, Wiener PHN with CRB plus the performance of the modied JCPCE scheme are also plotted, both derived in [15], which employs the modied Moose IFO estimator. This scheme exhibits good performance without requiring iterations but possesses high complexity (if sup-optimal approaches are not employed). The proposed WLS scheme achieves nearly the same performance without matrix inversions or any special preamble scheme. The conventional LS channel estimator is also plotted (for the case of PHN only), in order to show the performance degradation when PHN is not treated appropriately. As a nal comment, a large value of has been chosen in order to show that satisfactory FO estimation as well as channel estimation can be guaranteed (i.e., very close to the respective bounds) even for this worst case. C. Overall system performance assessment In Fig. 8, the overall system (namely, the cascade of CES/DDS) performance is assessed for various algorithmic combinations and simulation scenarios. In all cases, a Rayleigh channel and 16-QAM are used, with the number of iterations 2 = xed to 4. The curve corresponding to JCPCE/CPR-LS ( 3 10 , = 0) is provided in order to assess the performance degradation due to PHN by itself, using the best channel estimator. As we see, the ICI induces strong performance degradation for BER close to 102 . On the contrary, when

RFO variance

DAGRES and POLYDOROS: DECISION-DIRECTED LEAST-SQUARES PHASE PERTURBATION COMPENSATION IN OFDM SYSTEMS
1

4793

10

Perfect CSI, zero PHN,IFO IFO not estimated IFO estimated (always) IFO estimated (if > (36)) SNR=20dB RFO approximation (36)

10

BER

BER

WLS / WLS (=0.001,=0) WLS / WLS (2 =0.001,=0.5) Perfect CSI (2 =0,=0) JCPCE / CPR LS 2=0.001,=0)

10

SNR=30dB

WLS / CPR LS (2 =0 =0.5) 10


3

JCPCE / WLS (2 =0.001,=0) JCPCE / WLS (=0.001,=0.5) JCPCE / DLLMMSE (2 =0.001,=0) JCPCE / LMMSE (2 =0.001,=0) 15 20 25 30 35 40
10
3

0.01

SNR (dB)

IFO()

0.1

0.5

Fig. 8. modes.

Total-system performance for various combinations of CES/DDS

Fig. 9. DDS.

BER versus FO for two SNR values with WLS in both CES and

only IFO is present, the cascade of WLS/CPR-LS exhibits near-optimal performance even in high-SNR regions. These two scenarios are included in order to clarify that, for these specic PHN and FO values, the performance degradation is mainly due to PHN. We note that there exist many algorithms in the literature that can estimate and remove FO quite effectively and with lower computational complexity [22], but fail in the presence of strong PHN since they are not designed for it. The performance of the cascade WLS/WLS is almost the same as JCPCE/WLS when only PHN is present. We observe a marginal difference in the high-SNR region when FO is added (using the modied Moose JCPCE), which suggests the adoption of the proposed method in both estimation stages. Performance using the JCPCE/LMMSE cascade is also shown for PHN only. Here, a marginal difference is observed in the SNRs of interest, but the LMMSE fails to converge in the high-SNR region. The application of diagonal loading to the LMMSE (named DL-LMMSE) is also shown. We see that convergence improves, but the WLS still exhibits superior performance. In Fig. 9, the setup is the same as in Fig. 8, restricting it to WLS in both CES and DDS. Also we x the SNR to 20dB and 30dB. The BER is shown versus IFO, with the IFO ranging from 0.01 to 0.5. As shown, whenever the IFO is always estimated, the BER performance remains invariant regardless of the prior IFO statistics. However, when the IFO is small (below a threshold that we may determine via the approximation of (36)), it is actually better not to estimate the IFO. This is because the ambient PHN affects the estimator negatively versus its actual (small) value. However, things reverse above that threshold value, as shown in Fig. 9, which means that (36) may be used to decide when to turn the IFO estimator on. D. Sensitivity to model mismatch The performance of the proposed scheme will naturally degrade when the parameters related to the optimal window deviate from the assumed values, namely the values of SNR, PHN and FO statistics. In order to test robustness to such

4.5

SNR degradation for BER=102

3.5

Perfect SNR,PHN 1it Perfect SNR, PHN 8it Perfect PHN only 1it Perfect PHN only 8it m~0 (L=128) 1it m=0.2 (L 2Lo) 1it m=0.2 (L 2Lo) 8it m>>0 (L=1) 1it m=5 (L 0.5Lo) 1it m=2 (L 0.7Lo) 8it

2.5

1.5

0.5

0 10
4

Wiener PHN variance

Fig. 10. SNR degradation for attaining BER of 102 under model mismatch (Rayleigh)

possibly mismatched SNR and SINR parameters, a simple noise-variance-level estimator is adopted. At each CES iteration, the noise vector () is estimated by subtracting the () from the phase compensated () . The power ratio of the estimated channel over the variance of () in each iteration is employed for the determination of both the SINR and SNR. Specically, the SINR becomes the estimated ratio value of the rst iteration (namely, before the estimated TPP is removed), while the SNR becomes the ratio value of each iteration (i.e., the SNR estimate is updated with each iteration). These values are then passed on to the DDS for the determination of the symmetric window. In Fig. 10, the SNR degradation at a BER of 102 in Rayleigh, 64-QAM, Wiener PHN and zero RFO is shown for the proposed scheme with 4 iterations at the CES and either 1 or 8 iterations at the DDS. As illustrated, the performance with the right parameters is marginally affected by the adoption of the aforementioned SNR and SINR estimators for both iterative and non-iterative cases (when we assume perfect knowledge of the PHN statis-

4794

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS, VOL. 8, NO. 9, SEPTEMBER 2009

tics). Now, in order to assess the performance degradation due to PHN model mismatch, a deliberate uncertainty is added as follows: the modeled Wiener PHN variance (the one taken into account at window computation) is equal to the actual value, multiplied by a mismatch parameter . Let () be the continuous-valued window length computed via (30) by use of the estimated SNR and SINR parameters and assuming the actual PHN variance (() is near optimal as shown previously)./ Then, the corresponding mismatched value will equal to () (which means that model mismatch translates directly to window mismatch). The two extreme window lengths that can be computed by (31) would be either 1 or , corresponding to very high and low values of . Using these two extreme window values for the entire range of PHN represents lower performance bounds due to any model mismatch (for the assumed scenario) and are both included in Fig. 10 (for one iteration). For = , the performance is the same as with pure CPR removal since the estimator now reduces to the LS-CPR. For = 1, the dB loss depends on the PHN level, and ranges from a fraction of a dB to 2dB. The specic demonstrated values of the parameter have been selected so that they result in marginal performance degradation, and this is done for both the iterative and the noniterative scenarios. We choose = 0.2 in both scenarios for displaying cases where the PHN variance is under-modeled, which translates to roughly double the window length. For the non-iterative scenario, only a marginal shift in error oor is seen. For the iterative scenario, a marginal loss is seen when the mismatch is low (near-optimal performance), whereas a marginal gain appears when the model mismatch increases (because it will be chosen larger by the mismatch mistake). For cases where the PHN variance is over-modeled, the values of = 5 and = 2 are selected for the non-iterative and the iterative scenarios, respectively. For the rst scenario, the window length is roughly halved performing approximately as when it is doubled. For the second scenario, the value of is chosen to be 2 in order to demonstrate near-optimal performance (iterations are more sensitive in over-modeling). The performance loss in this case is only a shift of the error oor. We note that the above mismatched window values (resulting from a specic mismatch PHN model parameter), in essence represent any mismatch, either in the parametric sense or the modeling sense, that map to these window parameter values. For example PHN model could be erroneously assumed as Gaussian, or a non-existing FO could be modeled, leading again to window over- or under-determination. X. C ONCLUSIONS In this paper, an alternative linear (per sample) TPP description model is proposed for OFDM systems, leading to the development of a low complexity, robust windowed LS estimator. It outperforms similar algorithms proposed in the literature, on both dimensions of BER performance and complexity when applied in DDS, while near-CRB channel estimation is achieved when applied in CES. This was demonstrated through simulations under scenarios of strong PHN, FO plus challenging channel conditions. An additional advantage of the proposed scheme besides the performance and complexity gains is that it can be realized via functional

blocks that are always present in OFDM systems (CPR estimator, FFT). Finally, the diagonal-loading approach has been combined with iterations in order to enhance convergence of the proposed algorithm. This technique can be successfully applied to other decision-directed algorithms as well. A PPENDIX A ICI APPROXIMATION

COMPUTATION OF RESIDUAL

After removing the TPP estimate from the received data, the residual phase rotation at each sample can be approximated 1 + ; thus (3) becomes as (1 + (0)) + ICI + (43) with ICI computed as in (4) using (); () is given by (5) replacing with . Using the same approximation and derivation steps as in [14] for the determination of the ICI 2 power (E[ ] = 1, uncorrelated parameters), and since the data are normalized in power, the residual ICI power can be approximated as
2 ICI 1 =1

[ () ] (44)

= since

1 1 [ ] 2()/ 2 =1 =1 =1

1 =1

2()/ =

1, = 1, =

(45)

then
1 [ 2] 1 E 2 [ ] =1 =1 =1,= (46) The rst term of (46) is the dominant one because the correlation fades quickly for distant samples. For large , 2 can be further approximated by ICI 2 ICI

2 ICI

1 [ 2] E =1

(47)

i.e. by the average post compensation phase error power. When compensation is performed by de-rotating the received samples in the time domain using the estimated phase, the residual phase error equals the error of the estimated phase. A PPENDIX B COMPUTATION OF REQUIRED MOMENTS

( ) Dene the R.V. 1/ where 2 , 2 . The pdf of is ( ) /21 1 1 1 1 2 2 ( ) = (48) ( /2)2 /2 therefore E [ ] =
0

( ) =

1 ( 2)

(49)

DAGRES and POLYDOROS: DECISION-DIRECTED LEAST-SQUARES PHASE PERTURBATION COMPENSATION IN OFDM SYSTEMS

4795

Dene the R.V. + , are statistically where ( ) ( ) independent R.V.s with 2 , 2 , 2 , 2 . The pdf of is [23]

then E(:) ,(:) where [( )2 ] 2 = E(:) (:) LS / 2 2


()

[( )2 ] [ [( )2 ]] = E(:) E(:) (:) LS LS

(59)

( ) =

( + ) 1 (1 ) 1 ) ( )(

(50)

were = /2, = /2. Thus,

E [ ] = ( ) + and E [ 2 ] = ( + Dene the R.V.


( + 1) )( +

(60)

(51)

+1

(52)

, where and ( ) are statistically independent R.V.s with 2 2, 2 , E [ ] = , E(:) [ ] = , and the window of the R.V.s indices of length . Then / (53) E(:) (:) [] =

For the based [ scenario and since [ per-symbol ] ] LS = 0 , Var equals For E(:) (:) LS (:) (:) [ (60). ] the per-frame scenario and since (:) ,(:) LS = 0, [ LS ] 2 Var(:) ,(:) is given by (59). Since () ( ) 2 /2 , (29) follows from (59) ,(60) and 2 2(- + + + 1), (49). [ ] For Var LS , LS = Im { ( ( ) , ( ))} / 2 2 = ()
() ()

/ Also

(61)

( ) with 2 2 2, 2 . Thus,

from (51) and (53)

[ ] 1 E(:) ,(:) [] = E(:) E(:) (:) [] =

(54)

Additionally E(:) (:) [2 ] =

, )2 (55)

[ ] can be Var(:) (:) LS ( computed ) from (61) using (53) and 2 (55). Since 2 2, /2 and () has length (- + + + 1), (25) follows from (61) using (54),(57), the statistics [ LS ] of () and after some algebra. The computation of Var for the case of Wiener and rst-order Gaussian PHN models can be performed similarly for both scenarios. A PPENDIX D

We prove in this Appendix that the symmetric window parameterized by has the minimum unconstrained PCEV among all windows with the same length, i.e. among all E(:) ,(:) [2 ] = () = { - , ..., + + } with - + + = 2. 2 2 , + 1 (( + )2 2 Proof: For - < + (the same can be proved for + > - ) ), 2 ,= there exists an integer with 0 < < such that = (:) ( )2 and = + . Then, substituting , in (30) and after + + some algebra (56) [ ] ] [ / Var LS = Var LS () + ( ) ( )2 2 2 Also ( + ) 4, 2 , = [ ] 12( + 2)2 + (4 + 2)2 2 + with Var LS ( ) () 2 2 12 (2 + 1) (2 + 2) 2 4, . Thus, from (56) using (52) (62) , + , where LS ( ) is the corresponding term to the symmetric [ LS ] , i.e., (57) window. The same can be proven for Var E(:) ,(:) [2 ] = ( + 1) [ LS ] [ LS ] Var Var () (63) A PPENDIX C COMPUTATION OF PCEV TERMS [ LS ] for Wiener and rst-order Gaussian PHN. Also For Var , [ ] [ ] 1 = Var LS (64) Var LS = LS () = Im { ( , ( ))} 4 (Re{ } Im{ } Im{ } Re{ }) () = (58) for all - , + . Since the unconstrained PCEV of sample is 2 the sum of (62),(63) and (64), it is thus minimized by the () symmetric window parameterized by . Using (55) and reformulating properly,

4796

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS, VOL. 8, NO. 9, SEPTEMBER 2009

R EFERENCES
[1] T. Pollet, M. V. Bladel, and M. Moeneclaey, BER sensitivity of OFDM systems to carrier frequency offset and Wiener phase noise, IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 191-193, Feb. 1995. [2] L. Tomba, On the effect of Wiener phase noise in OFDM systems, IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 46, no. 5, pp. 580-583, May 1998. [3] A. Armada, Understanding the effects of phase noise in orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM), IEEE Trans. Broadcast., vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 153-159, June 2001. [4] K. Nikitopoulos and A. Polydoros, Phase-impairment effects and compensation algorithms for OFDM systems, IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 53, no. 4, pp. 698-707, Apr. 2005. [5] L. Piazzo and P. Mandarini, Analysis of phase noise effects in OFDM modems, IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 50, pp. 1696-1705, Oct. 2002. [6] M. S. El-Tanany, Y. Wu, and L. Hazy, Analytical modeling and simulation of phase noise interference in OFDM-based digital television terrestrial broadcasting systems, IEEE Trans. Broadcast. vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 20-31, Mar. 2001. [7] P. Smulders, Exploiting the 60GHz band for local wireless multimedia access: prospects and future directions, IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 40, pp. 140-147, Jan. 2002. [8] C. H. Doan, S. Emami, D. A. Sobel, A. M. Niknejad, and R. W. Brodersen, Design considerations for 60GHz CMOS Radios, IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 42, pp. 132-140, Dec. 2004. [9] G. Fettweis, M. Lohning, D. Petrovic, M. Windisch, P. Zillmann, and W. Rave, Dirty RF: a new paradigm, in Proc. PIMRC05, Berlin, pp. 1340-1344, Sept. 2005. [10] K. Nikitopoulos and A. Polydoros, Compensation schemes for phase noise and residual frequency offset in OFDM systems, in Proc. GLOBECOM, San Antonio, TX, pp. 331-333, Nov. 2001. [11] P. Robertson and S. Kaiser, Analysis of the effects of phase noise in OFDM systems, in Proc. ICC, 1995. [12] V. S. Abhayawardhana and I. J. Wassell, Common phase error correction with feedback for OFDM in wireless communication, in Proc. GLOBECOM , Taipei, Taiwan, pp. 651-652, Nov. 2002. [13] S. Wu, P. Liu, and Y. Bar-Ness, Phase noise estimation and mitigation for OFDM systems, IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 5, no. 12, pp. 3616-3625, Dec. 2006. [14] D. Petrovic, W. Rave, and G. Fettweis, Effects of phase noise on OFDM systems with and without PLL: characterization and compensation, IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 55, no. 8, pp. 1607-1616, Aug. 2007. [15] D. D. Lin, R. A. Pacheco, T. J. Lim, and D. Hatzinakos, Joint estimation of channel response, frequency offset and phase noise in OFDM, IEEE Trans. Signal Processing, vol. 54, no. 9, pp. 3542-3554, Sept. 2006. [16] D. D. Lin and T. Joon, The variational inference approach to joint data detection and phase noise estimation in OFDM, IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 55, no. 5, pp. 1862-1874, May 2007. [17] H. L. Van Trees, Optimum Array Processing: Detection, Estimation and Modulation Theory, Part IV. John Wiley & Sons, 2002.

[18] J. Liu and J. Li,Parameter estimation and error reduction for OFDMbased WLANs, IEEE Trans. Mobile Computing, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 152163, Apr. 2004. [19] S. Wu and Y. Bar-Ness, OFDM systems in the presence of phase noise: consequences and solutions, IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 52, no. 11, pp. 1988-1996, Nov. 2004. [20] S. M. Kay, Fundamentals of Statistical Processing, Vol. I: Estimation Theory. Prentice Hall, 1993. [21] D. G.Luenberger, Linear and Nonlinear Programming, 2nd ed. Addison Wesley, 1984. [22] P. H. Moose, A technique for orthogonal frequency division multiplexing frequency offset correction, IEEE Trans. Commun. vol. 42, no. 10, pp. 2908-2914, Oct. 1994. [23] A. Papoulis and S. Unnikrishna, Probability, Random Variables and Stochastic Processes, 4th ed. McGraw-Hill, 2002. Ioannis Dagres was born in Athens, Greece, in 1974. He received a BS degree in Computer Engineering and an MS degree in Signal Processing from the Technical University of Patras, Greece, in 1997 and 1999 respectively. He is currently working towards his Ph.D. degree at the same university. Since 1999 he has participated in several EU and Greek research projects and works as a Research Associate in the University of Athens. His research interests lie in the area of signal processing for communications, and in particular adaptive signal design and synchronization problems for multicarrier communication systems. Andreas Polydoros was born in Athens, Greece, in 1954. He was educated at the National Technical University of Athens, Greece (Diploma EE, 1977), State University of New York at Buffalo (MSEE, 1979) and the University of Southern California USC (Ph.D., EE, 1982). He was a faculty member at USC in the Electrical Engineering Department and the Communication Sciences Institute (CSI) in 1982-1997, becoming a Professor in 1992. He codirected CSI in 1991-93. In 1997 he was elected Professor in the Department of Physics, University of Athens, Greece. He directed the Electronics Laboratory of the Division of Applied Physics in 1997-2007. The areas of his scientic interests are stochastic digital communication theory, spread-spectrum systems and synchronization, digital mobile radio links and networks, detection-estimationclassication in uncertain environments and, more recently, exible-radio concepts. He is a co-inventor of the Per-Survivor Processing US patent (1995) and co-author of the related paper. He has served as Associate Editor for Communications of the IEEE T RANSACTIONS OF I NFORMATION T HEORY (1987-88), Guest Editor of various Special Issues and has been on the organizing committees of many conferences and workshops. He was elected Fellow of the IEEE in 1995. He co-founded Trellisware Technologies in San Diego, CA, in 2000.