1 and c =
2/2. In partic
ular, S
n
(k) is a known pilot symbol if k T. In addition,
S
n
(k) = 0 if k = 0 or k Z. The symbol vector S
n
is fed
to an Npoint inverse DFT that yields an N 1 timedomain
vector denoted by x
n
. To eliminate the intersymbol interference
(ISI) resulting fromtimedispersive channels, an N
g
point zero
padded (ZP) sufx is appended to each timedomain vector to
form an OFDM symbol.
Moreover, within the headers OFDM modulation process,
timedomain spreading is used by transmitting the same infor
mation across two consecutive header OFDM symbols. Consid
ering as an example the header symbols transmitted on Subband
1 and their adjacent symbols transmitted on Subband 2 or 3, we
have
S
n
(k) = S
n
(k), n T
1
; n
/
T
/
1
; [n n
/
[ = 1 (2)
for k 0, 1, . . . , N 1, where T
1
= 6, 9, 12, 15, and
T
1
/
= 7, 8, 13, 14 (see Fig. 1 for the relation between T
1
and
T
1
/
). It should also be noted that, within each OFDM symbol in
the header, a frequencydomain spreading technique is applied.
That is
S
n
(k) = [S
n
(N k)]
, k T
1
; n T (3)
where []
l=0
K
k=0
k,l
(t T
l
k,l
)
where (t) is the Dirac delta function, L is the number of
clusters, K is the number of rays in each cluster, T
l
is the delay
of the lth clusters rst path,
k,l
is the delay of the kth multipath
component (ray) relative to the lth cluster arrival time,
k,l
is
the multipath gain coefcient, and X represents the shadowing
factor of propagation channels.
The interarrival times of clusters and rays are exponentially
distributed with arrival rates and , respectively. The power
delay prole is given by
E
_
[
k,l
[
2
_
=
0
e
T
l
/
e
k,l
/
where E is the expectation operator,
0
is the mean energy
of the rst path of the rst cluster, is the cluster decay factor,
and is the ray decay factor. Moreover, the shadowing term X
is modeled as a lognormal random variable, i.e., 20 log
10
X
^(0,
2
x
), while the total energy contained in the terms
k,l
is
normalized to unity for each channel realization, i.e.,
L
l=0
K
k=0
[
k,l
[
2
= 1. (4)
Based on the SV model and the measurements of actual
channel environments, four types of indoor multipath chan
nels, namely, CM1, CM2, CM3, and CM4, are dened by
the IEEE 802.15 TG3a with different values for parameters
, , , ,
2
x
, and each of them has 100 realizations [1], [4].
The modeling considers communications among UWB devices
located within a range of less than 10 m. Specically, for ranges
less than 4 m, CM1 and CM2 are used to model the line
ofsight (LOS) and nonLOS (NLOS) channel environments,
respectively. For larger ranges, the NLOS CM3 and CM4 are
used, with emphasis on the strong delay dispersion involved
in CM4. Thus, we generally model the UWB channel in the
discretetime domain as an N
h
tap niteimpulse response lter
whose impulse response on a subband is denoted by
1
h = [h(0), h(1), . . . , h(N
h
1)]
T
. (5)
1
Following [23], the subband discretetime domain channelimpulse re
sponses can be obtained by converting h(t) to oversampled discretetime
samples, followed by pulseshaping ltering, complex downconversion, and
decimation. Without loss of generality and for notational convenience, we have
not used different notations to denote different impulse responses (including
N
h
) on different subbands.
The corresponding CFR H = [H(0), H(1), . . . , H(N 1)]
T
is given by H = F
N
h
h, where F
N
h
is the rst N
h
columns of
the Npoint DFT matrix.
At the receiver, the received samples pass through an Npoint
DFT processor after the N
g
ZP points of each OFDM symbol
are removed by using an overlapadd method (to convert linear
convolution to circular convolution in a ZPOFDM system
[24]). We assume that N
h
N
g
and that perfect timing and
frequency synchronization (frame timing, symbol timing, and
CFO compensation) can be achieved by using the rst 24
OFDM symbols of the received preamble.
2
Thus, the output
samples of the DFT processor corresponding to the nth received
OFDM symbol, i.e., Y
n
= [Y
n
(0), Y
n
(1), . . . , Y
n
(N 1)], are
given by
Y
n
(k)=S
n
(k)H(k)+V
n
(k), k0,1,. . . , N1 (6)
where V
n
(k) denotes the channel noise at the kth subcarrier and
is modeled as a complex Gaussian random variable with mean
zero and variance
2
, i.e., V
n
(k) (^(0,
2
).
III. MULTISTAGE CHANNEL ESTIMATION
We dene the estimate of H on a subband as
H =
[
H(0),
H(1), . . . ,
H(N 1)]. Without loss of generality, in the
sequel, we focus on Subband 1. The proposed channel estimator
consists of ve steps, which are further grouped into two stages.
The rst stage includes the rst two steps, and the second stage
includes the rest. Let
H
q
= [
H
q
(0),
H
q
(1), . . . ,
H
q
(N 1)]
be the estimate of H after the qth step. The normalized mean
squared error (NMSE) of this estimator is dened as
MSE
q
(k) = E
_
H
q
(k) H(k)
2
_
/E
0
, q = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
where E
0
= E[H(k)[
2
. Using (4), it can be shown
that E[H(k)[
2
= exp(0.0265
2
x
) for all k T
1
, T
2
[10,
eq. (8)]. In addition, MSE
q
(k) is found to be independent of the
subcarrier index k, as shall be clear from our later discussion.
Thus, in the sequel, we omit the index k in MSE
q
(k).
A. Stage 1Initial CFR Estimation
In the rst step, since [S
n
(k)[ = 1, we can obtain
H
1
from
(6) as
H
1
(k) =
1
M
1
n(
1
Y
n
(k)
S
n
(k)
=
1
M
1
n(
1
Y
n
(k) [S
n
(k)]
(7)
2
The assumption N
h
N
g
may not always be strictly correct, particularly
when CM4 is considered. The resulting ISI may slightly affect the consistency
between the related analytical and simulation results. However, as we will show
later, ISI has no signicant impairment to the effectiveness of the proposed
channel estimator in this case.
1358 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 59, NO. 3, MARCH 2010
for k T
1
, T
2
, where M
1
= 2 is the number of training
symbols per subband. Clearly, this is an LS estimate based on
the training sequence with a 3dB gain in estimation accuracy
resulting from averaging two estimates (M
1
= 2) obtained
from the same subband (
1
. In this case, we have MSE
1
=
1/(M
1
SNR), where SNR is the average SNR over all sub
carriers at the receiver.
In the second step, we apply a simple frequencydomain
smoothing operation to
H
1
and obtain
H
2
as
H
2
(k)=
h
_
H
1
(k1)+
H
1
(k+1)
_
+(12
h
)
H
1
(k) (8)
for k T
1
, T
2
, where 0 <
h
< 0.5. By doing so, the CFR
estimate on each subcarrier is smoothed using the estimates
from adjacent subcarriers such that the residual error contained
in the initial LS estimate can be reduced. Note that, when k
1, 56, 72, 127, the kth subcarrier has only one valid adjacent
subcarrier, as can be seen from Fig. 2. In this case, (8) can
accordingly be modied such that only one adjacent subcarrier
is used for smoothing.
The validity of using the aforementioned frequencydomain
smoothing technique can be justied by examining the relation
ship between the channelcoherent bandwidth and the subcar
rier spacing. Denote by (k) the normalized cross correlation
of H(k), i.e., (k) = EH(k + k)[H(k)]
/E[H(k)[
2
,
with k being a small integer. Then, from [10], we have
[(k)[
1 +
NT
s
NT
s
+j2k
1 +
1 +
NT
s
NT
s
+j2k
1 +
(9)
where T
s
is the sampling interval of the received signals.
Applying the actual values of , , , and (see [1, Table II])
to (9), we nd that [(k)[ = 0.99, 0.98, 0.94, and 0.84 for
CM1, CM2, CM3, and CM4, respectively, when [k[ = 1.
Since the UWB channelcoherent bandwidth is much larger
than the subcarrier spacing, the CFRs for adjacent subcarri
ers are approximately identical [9], i.e., H(k) H(k + 1),
k 0, 1, . . . , N 2. Therefore, the use of frequencydomain
smoothing for channel estimation in this case is appropriate. It
should be pointed out that, strictly speaking,
H
2
is a biased
estimate of H in a frequencyselective fading channel, unless
h
= 0. Nevertheless, it is conceivable that
H
2
will be close
to an unbiased estimate of H if the smoothing parameter
h
is
sufciently small.
The actual choice of the smoothing parameter
h
should also
take into account the resulting MSE
2
. Let = 6 2'[4(1)
(2)], where '[X] denotes the real part of X. From (7) and (8),
we can obtain the value of
h
, which is optimal in the sense
of minimizing MSE
2
(see Appendix A for detailed derivation).
The closedform expression for
h
is given by
opt
h
= (3 + 0.5M
1
SNR)
1
. (10)
Replacing
h
in (8) with its optimum value requires the knowl
edge of channel statistics and SNR, which may not be available
in practice. A suboptimal yet practical solution is to evaluate
MSE
2
over the entire SNR range of interest for the four types
Fig. 3. NMSE ratio R
1,2
mse
versus smoothing parameter
h
and SNR under
various channel environments. (a) CM1. (b) CM2. (c) CM3. (d) CM4.
of UWB channels. Dening R
1,2
mse
:= MSE
1
/MSE
2
, from (27),
we have
R
1,2
mse
=
_
2
h
M
1
SNR + 6
2
h
4
h
+ 1
_
1
. (11)
Fig. 3 shows the NMSE ratio R
1,2
mse
versus
h
and SNR for
the four different types of UWB channels. The SNR range is
chosen to be 5 to 20 dB in the case of CM1 and CM2 and
5 to 9 dB in the case of CM3 and CM4 since the latter
are only applicable to lower rate transmission systems with
lower highend operational SNRs [1]. Since a positive R
1,2
mse
(in decibels) indicates that
H
2
is more accurate than the initial
LS estimate
H
1
, we can conclude from Fig. 3 that a good
smoothing factor should satisfy 0 <
h
0.1 so that we have
R
1,2
mse
> 0 dB in all scenarios.
3
In particular, our systemlevel
evaluation shows that, by selecting
h
0.1, the resulting CFR
estimate is nearly unbiased in the sense that the residual bias has
an almost negligible adverse effect on system performance.
The channel estimate
H
2
obtained from the second step will
be used to process the frame header. Header processing, in
turn, leads to the second stage of channel estimation, which is
described next.
B. Stage 2Enhanced CFR Estimation
In this stage, we rst detect the OFDM symbols within the
frame header, i.e., those with indexes n T in Fig. 1, using the
channel estimate
H
2
obtained from Stage 1. Then, by using
these detected header symbols in a decisiondirected manner
[13], [25], we obtain a rened CFR estimate.
To detect the frame header OFDM symbol on Subband 1, we
rst compute
S
n
(k)=Y
n
(k)/
H
2
(k), nT
1
; kT
1
, T
2
; k , T.
3
Note that the actual propagation environments of UWB may be different
from those described by CM1CM4. However, as long as the ranges of (1),
(2), and SNR are roughly available, a desirable choice of
h
can easily be
made using (11).
WANG et al.: LOWCOMPLEXITY AND EFFICIENT CHANNEL ESTIMATOR FOR MULTIBAND OFDMUWB SYSTEMS 1359
Similarly, we compute
S
n
(k)=Y
n
(k)/
H
/
2
(k), n
/
T
/
1
; kT
1
, T
2
; k,T
where
H
/
2
(k), corresponding to its counterpart on Subband 1,
i.e.,
H
2
(k), denotes the channel estimate associated with Sub
band 2 or 3. Recall that each S
n
(k) [also S
n
(k)] belongs to
a QPSK constellation, i.e., S
n
(k) = c[u
n
(k) +jv
n
(k)], where
c =
2/2, and u
n
(k), v
n
(k) +1, 1. Then, using (2) and
(3), we obtain the following estimators for u
n
(k) and v
n
(k):
u
n
(k) =sgn
'[
S
n
(k)+
S
n
(Nk)
. .
direct combination
+
S
n
(k)+
S
n
(Nk)
. .
direct combination
]
v
n
(k) =sgn
S
n
(k)
S
n
(Nk)
. .
direct combination
+
S
n
(k)
S
n
(Nk)
. .
direct combination
]
(12)
for k T
1
, T
2
and k / T, n T
1
, n
/
T
1
/
, and [n n
/
[ =
1, where [X] denotes the imaginary part of X.
Although effective in the moderate or highSNR regime,
the aforementioned detector suffers from low reliability in the
lowSNR regime. This motivates us to further improve the de
tection performance by introducing a CFRweighted detection
scheme. Let
Z
n
(k) =
H
2
(k)
S
n
(k) = Y
n
(k)
_
H
2
(k)
_
Z
n
(k) =
H
/
2
(k)
S
n
(k) = Y
n
(k)
_
H
/
2
(k)
_
(13)
for k T
1
, T
2
and k / T, n T
1
, and n
/
T
1
/
. Replacing
S
n
(k) with Z
n
(k) and
S
n
(k) with Z
n
(k) in (12) yields the
following detector:
u
n
(k) =sgn
'[Z
n
(k)+Z
n
(Nk)
. .
weightedcombination
+Z
n
(k)+Z
n
(Nk)
. .
weightedcombination
]
v
n
(k) =sgn
[Z
n
(k)Z
n
(Nk)
. .
weightedcombination
+Z
n
(k)Z
n
(Nk)
. .
weightedcombination
]
(14)
for k T
1
, T
2
and k / T, n T
1
, n
/
T
1
/
, and [n n
/
[ =
1. Thus, multiplying
S
n
(k) by [
H
2
(k)[
2
or
S
n
(k) by [
H
/
2
(k)[
2
in (13) yields a weighted combination of two frequencydomain
spread signals in (14) in a way similar to the maximum
ratiocombining principle (see, for example, [11]), but with
lower complexity as no divisions are required to obtain Z
n
(k)
and Z
n
(N k). The weighting factor [
H
2
(k)[
2
is the CFR
magnitude (squared) on the kth subcarrier. The larger [
H
2
(k)[
2
is, the more reliable the detected header symbol [i.e.,
S
n
(k)]
on the kth subcarrier will be, and vice versa. Hence, compared
with the direct combination of
S
n
(k) and
S
n
(N k) in (12),
the weighted combination in (14) results in a CFRweighted
detection scheme that is more noise resilient and reliable. We
shall demonstrate this further in Section IVA.
Using the detected header symbols, as well as the pilots,
we now obtain a decisiondirected channel estimate
H
3
, i.e.,
H
3
(k), for k T
1
, T
2
, in the third step, as
H
3
(k) =
c
M
2
nT
1
Y
n
(k) [ u
n
(k) j v
n
(k)] , k , T
1
M
2
nT
1
Y
n
(k) [S
n
(k)]
, k T.
(15)
In the fourth step, we apply the frequencydomain smoothing
operation introduced in the second step to
H
3
. The resulting
CFR estimate
H
4
is given by
H
4
(k)=
h
_
H
3
(k1)+
H
3
(k+1)
_
+(12
h
)
H
3
(k) (16)
for k T
1
, T
2
, where
h
is a smoothing factor whose value
can be determined following a procedure similar to that for
choosing
h
.
Finally, in the fth step, we obtain
H as a weighted average
of
H
2
and
H
4
as
H =
H
5
= (M
1
H
2
+M
2
H
4
)/(M
1
+M
2
). (17)
The nal CFR estimate
H is more accurate than
H
2
obtained
in the rst stage and will be used to process the payload OFDM
symbols in the current frame.
IV. MEANSQUARED ERROR PERFORMANCE AND
COMPUTATIONAL COMPLEXITY
In this section, we analyze the MSE performance and compu
tational complexity of the vestep channel estimator proposed
in Section III [see (7), (8), (15)(17)].
A. MSE Performance Analysis
We observe from Section IIIB that the actual performance
enhancement resulting from the third step depends on the CFR
weighted detection performance. Suppose that a header sym
bol S
n
(k) is transmitted on the kth subcarrier (k T
1
, T
2
and k / T, and n T
1
), and the corresponding received and
detected symbols are Y
n
(k) and
S
n
(k) = c[ u
n
(k) +j v
n
(k)],
respectively. Denoting by H
d
(k) and H
s
(k) the LS estimates
of the CFR on the kth subcarrier obtained by using the detected
header symbol and by assuming that the transmitted header
symbol is known at the receiver, respectively, we have
H
d
(k)=Y
n
(k)
_
S
n
(k)
_
, H
s
(k)=Y
n
(k) [S
n
(k)]
. (18)
Apparently, the NMSE of H
s
(k) is given by MSE
s
= 1/SNR.
To derive the NMSE of H
d
(k), i.e., MSE
d
, we rst need to
consider the headerdetection error. Let S
n
(k) =
S
n
(k)
S
n
(k). Denote by P
e
the average bit error probability (BEP)
of the proposed CFRweighted header OFDM symbol detector,
1360 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 59, NO. 3, MARCH 2010
i.e., P
e
=Pr u
n
(k)'[S
n
(k)] < 0=Pr v
n
(k)[S
n
(k)] < 0.
Then, from (6) and (18), we can obtain
MSE
d
=E
_
[H
d
(k)H(k)[
2
_
/E
0
=E
_
[H(k)S
n
(k)+V
n
(k)]
_
S
n
(k)
_
H(k)
2
_
/E
0
=E
_
[H(k)S
n
(k)V
n
(k)[
2
_
/E
0
=E
_
[S
n
(k)[
2
_
ES
n
(k)[V
n
(k)/H(k)]
E[S
n
(k)]
V
n
(k)/H(k)+1/SNR
=4P
e
2'[ES
n
(k)[V
n
(k)/H(k)]
]+1/SNR
4
P
e
+1/SNR (19)
where
P
e
is the BEP associated with an SNR that is 6 dB
higher than that of P
e
. The last approximation in (19) is
obtained with the following facts: Contrary to the conventional
assumption that S
n
(k)s and V
n
(k)s are independent, i.e.,
ES
n
(k)[V
n
(k)]
S
n
(k), the residual error term E[S
n
(k)[
2
(i.e., after
cancellation) can be envisioned as being approximately
attributed to
P
e
. Although it is very difcult to rigorously
substantiate this intuitive approximation, its effectiveness has
been validated through extensive simulations in Section V.
We further show in Appendix B that P
e
is approximately
upper bounded by P
ub
e
as
P
e
P
ub
e
=
1
2
x
Q
_
10
x
20
_
e
x
2
2
2
x
dx (20)
where = 2
_
(M
1
R
1,2
mse
SNR+1)SNR
[(M
1
R
1,2
mse
+1)SNR+1]E
0
and Q() denotes the
complementary cumulative distribution function of the standard
Gaussian distribution. Denote by
P
ub
e
the counterpart of
P
e
corresponding to P
ub
e
. Let MSE
b
= 4
P
ub
e
+ 1/SNR. Clearly,
MSE
b
can be interpreted as an approximate upper bound of
MSE
d
. Fig. 4 shows the comparison between MSE
b
and MSE
s
under various channel environments. The analytically com
puted MSE
b
curves are close to their respective MSE
s
curves
in the entire SNR region of practical interest. Thus, it can
be concluded that, when applied for channel reestimation, a
detected header OFDM symbol obtained using the proposed
CFRweighted detector should perform similarly to a known
channeltraining OFDM symbol, under all channel environ
ments. This is also conrmed via simulations in Fig. 4, i.e.,
all the MSE
d
curves are close to their respective MSE
s
curves
in the entire SNR region of practical interest. Fig. 4 also shows
the NMSE performances of the channel estimate obtained with
the simple average detector, which is formed based on (12).
Observe that the proposed CFRweighted detector results in
much better MSE performance.
From (19) and (20), we have MSE
b
MSE
d
approximately.
As expected, observe from Fig. 4 that all MSE
d
curves remain
tightly close to their analytical counterparts MSE
b
under all
channel environments, except in the case of CM4, where the
Fig. 4. NMSE performance comparison for channel estimates based on a
singleheader OFDM symbol obtained using different methods under (a) CM1,
(b) CM2, (c) CM3, and (d) CM4. (Ana, Sim, CW, KH, and SA are abbreviations
for analytical, simulation, CFRweighted, known header, and simple average,
respectively.)
simulated MSE
d
obviously exceeds the analytical MSE
b
, par
ticularly in the highSNR regime (also very slightly in CM3).
This abnormal phenomenon is due to the ISI effect, which
has not been considered in the analysis of MSE
b
but becomes
serious when CM4 is used for simulations (to obtain MSE
d
).
The ISI effect becomes more evident in the case of MSE
s
,
where ISI is the only factor that affects the consistency between
the analytical MSE
s
curve and its simulated counterpart. How
ever, even with this exception, we observe that the difference
between the simulated MSE
d
and the analytical MSE
b
is not
signicant. We therefore use the assumption MSE
d
MSE
b
or,
equivalently,
P
e
P
ub
e
, in subsequent discussions.
An alternative way to reduce the detrimental effect of de
tection errors in the third step of our CFR estimator is to
directly use decoded data instead of the output signal from the
detector (equalizer). As described in [4] and [5], a convolutional
channel encoder together with a ReedSolomon encoder are
employed at the transmitter such that the frame header infor
mation at the receiver can reliably be decoded. The recovered
frame header sequence
S
n
(k), n T should be same as the
transmitted sequence S
n
(k), and thus, it can be reused as
WANG et al.: LOWCOMPLEXITY AND EFFICIENT CHANNEL ESTIMATOR FOR MULTIBAND OFDMUWB SYSTEMS 1361
an additional channel estimation sequence. However, practical
implementation of this scheme is difcult due to the highspeed
processing requirement and the limited hardware resource in a
UWB device. Therefore, our proposed CFRweighted detection
scheme constitutes a desirable practical solution for this step
since it is simple while almost error free.
As shown in Appendix A, the NMSE of the CFR estimation
resulting from the rst stage is given by
MSE
2
=
2
h
+
_
6
2
h
4
h
+ 1
_
/(M
1
SNR). (21)
Similarly, following the aforementioned discussion that
MSE
d
MSE
b
=4
P
ub
e
+1/SNR and, consequently, MSE
3
4
P
ub
e
+1/(M
2
SNR), we can obtain
MSE
4
2
h
+
_
6
2
h
4
h
+1
_
_
4
P
ub
e
+1/(M
2
SNR)
_
. (22)
From (17), the NMSE of the nal channel estimate
H can be
obtained as
MSE =E
_

H H
2
_
/E
_
H
2
_
=
_
M
2
1
MSE
2
+ 2M
1
M
2
C
24
+M
2
2
MSE
4
_
(M
1
+M
2
)
2
(23)
where C
24
= E(
H
4
H)(
H
2
H)
H
/EH
2
, with
()
H
denoting Hermitian transpose. However, since the header
detection error and channel noise are somewhat correlated, as
was indicated in deriving MSE
d
in (19), it is difcult to obtain
a closedform expression for C
24
. Hence, we choose to decom
pose MSE into two conceptually independent components as
MSE = MSE
p
+ MSE
n
. The headerdetection errors account
for the rst component MSE
p
, which can approximately be
obtained as MSE
p
4
P
ub
e
by assuming that all symbols for
channel estimation (including training symbols) only suffer
from detection errors with the same BEP, i.e.,
P
ub
e
. The second
component MSE
n
is purely channel noise related and can be
obtained as
MSE
n
=
M
2
1
MSE
2
+ 2M
1
M
2
C
24
+M
2
2
MSE
4
(M
1
+M
2
)
2
(24)
where MSE
4
is given by
MSE
4
=
2
h
+
_
6
2
h
4
h
+ 1
_
/(M
2
SNR) (25)
and
C
24
is a simplied form of C
24
obtained in the absence
of headerdetection errors. Following the derivation of
C
24
in Appendix C, we obtain
C
24
=
h
h
. Dening R
mse
=
MSE
1
/MSE and following the aforementioned discussion, we
obtain
R
mse
=MSE
1
/(MSE
p
+MSE
n
)(M
1
+M
2
)
2
/M
1
__
4(M
1
+M
2
)
2
P
ub
e
+(M
1
h
+M
2
h
)
2
_
SNR
+M
1
_
6
2
h
4
h
+1
_
+M
2
_
6
2
h
4
h
+1
_
_
1
.
Fig. 5 shows R
mse
versus SNR under different channel en
vironments with
h
= 0.1 and
h
= 0.05. Although not crit
ically necessary in actual design, setting
h
<
h
is justied
Fig. 5. Analytical NMSE ratio R
mse
under various channel environments
with
h
= 0.1 and
h
= 0.05.
in principle based on the discussion about the choice of
h
in Section IIIA and from comparing (21) and (22), since we
generally have MSE
3
< MSE
1
with MSE
3
4
P
ub
e
+ 1/(M
2
n(
1
Y
n
(k)[S
n
(k)]
in (7) can be
1362 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 59, NO. 3, MARCH 2010
TABLE I
REQUIRED COMPUTATIONAL COMPLEXITY FOR CFR ESTIMATION PER SUBBAND IN A FRAME
computed with two real multiplications and six real additions
for each k T
1
, T
2
. Furthermore, given the properly se
lected smoothing parameters
h
and
h
, one may always nd
integers
1
and
2
, such that
1
h
= 1 and
2
h
= 1. Based
on this arrangement, the related multiplications in Steps 2
and 4 in the proposed method can simply be implemented by
logic shifters. The scale factors
1
and
2
can be incorporated
into the multiplication operations required in Steps 1 and 3,
respectively. Steps 2 and 4 each require 2R real multiplications
and 4R real additions (per subband). We assume that the ML
estimator can be implemented by the cascade of two Npoint
DFT operations,
4
weighted by an N
m
N
m
matrix [19], where
the DFT is splitradix based requiring N log
2
N 3N + 4 real
multiplications and 3N log
2
N 3N + 4 real additions
5
[28].
As shown in Table I, the LS estimator given by (7) requires
2R real multiplications and 6R real additions (per subband).
Compared with the conventional LS estimator, while the pro
posed scheme requires three times more real multiplications
and about ve times more real additions, the ML estimator
requires about 28 (when N
m
= 37) or 77 (when N
m
= 64)
times more real multiplications and 15 (when N
m
= 37) or
31 (when N
m
= 64) times more real additions. The drastically
increased computational complexity of the ML scheme makes
it prohibitive in practice.
We want to point out that the complexity of the ML scheme
given in Table I is based on the assumption that a matrix of
size N
m
N
m
is prestored. This matrix contains the coef
cients required for performing ML estimation, which depend
on the parameter N
m
. Since N
m
may vary with the actual
channel environment and one cannot afford to prestore several
different ML matrices with a limited hardware resource, the
N
m
dependent property of the ML matrix is considered as a
serious drawback of the MLbased channel estimation scheme
4
In fact, due to the rigid timing requirement in OFDMUWB processing, the
ML estimator may not be able to share the use of a DFT processor with normal
OFDM symbol processing. Thus, practical implementation of the ML estimator
may require an additional DFT processor with dramatically increased use of
hardware resources. In other words, our assumption with the ML estimator
here may result in serious underestimation of its implementation complexity
in practice.
5
The computational complexity of a DFT with only a subset of input or
output points can be reduced by using FFT pruning or transform decomposition
[19]. However, careful examination of various algorithms with reference to
the discussion in [29] shows that the splitradixbased solution has the lowest
complexity for the given values of N and N
m
in our case.
for implementation of OFDM systems in practice. In fact, this
problem becomes even worse in the case of OFDMUWB.
Suppose that only a single matrix that amounts to 2N
2
m
real
data elements requires to be stored in memory. Assuming that
each real data is 8bit long and three logic gates are required
to implement one bit memory, about 66K (N
m
= 37) to 197K
(N
m
= 64) logic gates may be required to store one ML matrix.
This is prohibitive for implementation in a handheld UWB
device as this amounts to a signicant portion of the logic
gates available for implementing the whole digital portion of
the UWB physical layer [1]. One way to circumvent this is to
compute the ML matrix in real time. However, this calculation
involves matrix inversion, which is of high complexity and is
practically infeasible.
In comparison, our proposed scheme requires no matrix
storage and maintains a similar order of computational com
plexity as the simple LS estimator, which makes it feasible and
attractive for practical implementation.
V. SIMULATION RESULTS
In the simulations, we consider an OFDMUWB system with
a data rate of 53.3 Mb/s. The selection of the lowest data
rate specied in [4], as exemplied here, is to illustrate the
effectiveness of the proposed techniques under very low SNR
conditions. In this case, the frame payload is encoded using
a convolutional encoder with rate 1/3 and constraint length 7,
modulated with QPSK, and spread in time and frequency
domains in a way similar to that described in Section IIA to
process the frame header. We assume that TFC = 1 and that
the frame payload is 1024 octets long with perfect timing and
frequency synchronization. We use the UWB channel models
CM1, CM2, CM3, and CM4, each of which has 100 realizations
[1]. Following the convention of OFDMUWB system design,
the worst ten realizations of each channel model are ignored for
all the MSE and frameerrorrate (FER)related performance
evaluation [1], [10]. This is due to the fact that the maxi
mum excess delays of some channel realizations, particularly
those of CM3 and CM4, are nonnegligibly longer than N
g
, as
mentioned in Section IVA. In addition, we set
h
= 0.1 and
h
= 0.05.
Fig. 6 shows the NMSE performance for different channel
estimation schemes. As expected, the proposed channel
WANG et al.: LOWCOMPLEXITY AND EFFICIENT CHANNEL ESTIMATOR FOR MULTIBAND OFDMUWB SYSTEMS 1363
Fig. 6. NMSE performance comparison in terms of NMSE ratio R
mse
versus SNR for various channel estimation methods under (a) CM1, (b) CM2,
(c) CM3, and (d) CM4. (Sim, Ana, and PD are abbreviations for simulation,
analytical and proposed, respectively.)
estimator using 18 OFDM symbols (M
1
+M
2
= 6 per sub
band) performs much better than the conventional LS estimator
using six OFDM symbols (M
1
= 2 per subband), with about
a 3.55.9dB NMSE performance gain. Observe that the sim
ulated performance of the proposed scheme closely follows
the analytical result under CM1/CM2. With CM3/CM4, on the
other hand, a deviation between the simulation and analytical
results is observed. This is because the multipath delay spreads
of most of the CM3 and CM4 realizations are quite large, and
therefore, a certain amount of ISI exists even after the worst
10% channel realizations are dropped. Nevertheless, it should
be pointed out that, even without using any specic remedy for
residual ISI, the resulting system performance is still accept
able, as we shall see later in the FER performance evaluation
of the overall system. Fig. 6 also shows the performance of
the ML estimator with N
m
= 37 and N
m
= 64 for CM1/CM2
and CM3/CM4, respectively. Clearly, the proposed scheme
using 18 OFDM symbols outperforms the ML estimator using
six OFDM symbols (M
1
= 2 per subband) for CM3/CM4,
whereas the proposed scheme underperforms the ML estimator
for CM1/CM2 only in the very low SNR regime and outper
forms it otherwise.
The FER performance for the four different types of UWB
channels are shown in Fig. 7. Observe that the proposed channel
estimator performs slightly worse than ML for CM1/CM2 and
slightly better than ML for CM3/CM4, while outperforming the
LS estimator by about 1.01.2 dB gain (at FER = 0.08the
performance comparison point specied in [4]) and with much
reduced loss (about 2 dB) from the case of perfect channel
knowledge, under all channel conditions.
It is interesting to note that the NMSE performances of the
proposed estimator and the ML estimator in Fig. 6 do not seem
to correlate well with the FERperformance in Fig. 7. On the one
hand, although the proposed estimator and the ML estimator
exhibit a signicant difference in their NMSE performance for
CM3/CM4 (about 1.5 dB at SNR = 2 dB), the difference in
their FER performance is not correspondingly obvious (about
Fig. 7. FER performance comparison for various channelestimation methods
under (a) CM1 and CM2 and (b) CM3 and CM4.
0.10.2 dB). On the other hand, when the difference in the
NMSE performance of these estimators for CM1/CM2 is not
signicant (about 0.5 dB at SNR = 2 dB), the difference in
their FER performance is relatively obvious (about 0.4 dB).
This performance mismatch arises from two aspects: First, the
existence of serious ISI in the received OFDM symbols signif
icantly contributes to the FER performance for CM3/CM4. It
should be emphasized that ISI results in not only less accurate
channel estimation but also substantial distortion of data (pay
load) OFDM symbols, both of which result in datadetection
errors and, thus, frame errors. Hence, even in the lowSNR
regime, the ISIcaused data corruption offsets, to some extent,
the FER benets of using the proposed channel estimator that
has signicantly better NMSE performance for CM3/CM4 than
the ML estimator.
Second, we recall that, regardless of the ISI effect, the MSE
of the proposed channel estimator is related to both channel
noise and headerdetection errors under lowSNR conditions,
whereas the MSE of the ML estimator is wholly attributed
to channel noise. From the discussion in Section IVA, one
can easily envisage that the MSE that exclusively results from
channel noise and headerdetection errors may have a different
1364 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 59, NO. 3, MARCH 2010
impact on the FER performance. In other words, since com
puting the MSE from headerdetection errors involves an error
cancellation process, as described in Section IVA, there may
exist a small amount of MSE, which is initially hidden in the
channel estimates obtained using detected header symbols but
later reveals its impact on detected data symbols as an extra
FER performance loss. Thus, the effective NMSE performance
of the proposed estimator will be slightly worse than that ob
served in Fig. 6 in the lowSNR regime. Equivalently speaking,
while doing MSE and FER behavior mapping with Figs. 6 and
7, one may take from Fig. 6 an increased difference in the
NMSE performance of two estimators for CM1/CM2 and a
decreased difference for CM3/CM4. To corroborate this reason
ing via simulations, we constructed a virtual channel estimator,
which is exactly the same as the proposed estimator, except that
it assumes zeroerror header detection with increased level of
the channel noise in the received header symbols to maintain
the same amount of MSE as that of the proposed estimator.
As shown in Fig. 7, the virtual estimator results in an FER
performance that is slightly better than that of the proposed
estimator under all channel conditions. As expected, the previ
ously observed MSE/FER mismatch has largely disappeared in
this case.
VI. CONCLUSION
In this paper, we have proposed a novel channelestimation
scheme for MBOFDM UWB systems. The solution has been
veried to be effective and efcient in terms of performance and
implementation complexity. The channel estimator is LS based
but enhanced with a multistage procedure using a simplied
CFRweighted decisiondirected process, as well as frequency
domain smoothing. Both analytical and numerical results show
that the proposed scheme achieves performance similar to that
of the more sophisticated but practically infeasible ML estima
tor, and it outperforms the conventional LS estimator with about
3.55.9 dB gain in terms of NMSE performance and about a
1dB gain in terms of FER performance under various highly
noisy multipath channel environments.
APPENDIX A
FINDING THE OPTIMAL
h
Assuming that the CFR, transmitted signal, and additive
white Gaussian noise are independent of each other, from (6)
and (7), we have
E
_
H
1
(k)
2
_
=E
0
+E
0
/(M
1
SNR)
E
_
H
1
(k) [H(k)]
_
=E
_
H(k)
_
H
1
(k)
_
_
= E
0
E
_
H
1
(k 1) [H(k)]
_
=E
_
H(k)
_
H
1
(k 1)
_
_
=(1)E
0
EH(k
k
) [H(k)]
=E
_
H
1
(k
k
)
_
H
1
(k)
_
_
=(
k
)E
0
,
k
1, 2
(26)
for k 0, 1, . . . , N 1. Using (26) and the property that
(
k
) = [(
k
)]
H
2
(k) H(k)
2
_
/E
0
=
2
h
+
_
6
2
h
4
h
+ 1
_
/(M
1
SNR). (27)
Next, we minimize MSE
2
with respect to
h
. Setting to zero
the gradient of MSE
2
with respect to
h
, it is straightforward
to obtain (10).
APPENDIX B
DERIVATION OF P
ub
e
In this Appendix, we derive the approximate upper bound
of the average BEP of the proposed CFRweighted detec
tor, i.e., P
ub
e
. After the rst stage of channel estimation, the
channel estimate
H
2
(k), which is given by (8), can be ex
pressed as
H
2
(k) = H(k) +
W(k) (28)
where the estimation error term
W(k) is a complex Gaussian
random variable with mean zero and variance
2
= E
0
/(M
1
R
1,2
mse
SNR). We note that
W(k) is uncorrelated with H(k)
and S
n
(k) but is correlated with
H
2
(k). Referring to the discus
sion in [26, Sec. IIB], we can decompose
W(k) into two un
correlated terms as
W(k) =
W(k) +
W(k) =
H
2
(k)
2
/E
0
+
W(k). Here,
W(k) is a complex Gaussian random variable
with mean zero and variance
2
= E
0
2
/(E
0
+
2
). Thus,
(28) can be rewritten as
H(k) = (1
2
/E
0
)
H
2
(k)
W(k). (29)
From (3), (6), (13), and (29), we have
Z
n
(k)+Z
n
(Nk)
= (1
2
/E
0
)
H
2
(k)
2
S
n
(k)
+ (1
2
/E
0
)
H
2
(Nk)
2
[S
n
(k)]
H
2
(k)S
n
(k)
W(k)
H
2
(Nk) [S
n
(k)]
W(Nk)
+
H
2
(k)V
n
(k)+
H
2
(Nk)V
n
(Nk)
for k T
1
and k / T, and n T
1
. Similarly, by making use
of (2), we have
Z
n
(k)+Z
n
(Nk)
= (1
2
/E
0
)
H
/
2
(k)
2
S
n
(k)
+ (1
2
/E
0
)
H
/
2
(Nk)
2
[S
n
(k)]
H
/
2
(k)S
n
(k)
W
/
(k)
H
/
2
(Nk) [S
n
(k)]
W
/
(Nk)
+
H
/
2
(k)V
n
(k)+
H
/
2
(Nk)V
n
(Nk)
for k T
1
and k / T, and n
/
T
1
/
, where
W
/
(k) denotes the
estimation error associated with either Subband 2 or Subband 3.
Let X(k)=Z
n
(k)+Z
n
(Nk)+Z
n
(k)+Z
n
(Nk) and
G(k)=[
H
2
(k)[
2
+[
H
2
(Nk)[
2
+[
H
/
2
(k)[
2
+[
H
/
2
(N k)[
2
.
WANG et al.: LOWCOMPLEXITY AND EFFICIENT CHANNEL ESTIMATOR FOR MULTIBAND OFDMUWB SYSTEMS 1365
Obviously, X(k) is Gaussian distributed for given S
n
(k),
H
2
(k),
H
2
(Nk),
H
/
2
(k), and
H
/
2
(Nk). Since [S
n
(k)[
2
=1,
EV
n
(k)=0, EV
n
(k)=0, E[V
n
(k)]
2
=0, E[V
n
(k)]
2
=
0, E
W(k) = 0, E
W
/
(k) = 0, E[
W(k)]
2
= 0, and
E[
W
/
(k)]
2
= 0, it is straightforward to show that the condi
tional mean and variance of '[X(k)] are given by E'[X(k)][
S
n
(k),
H
2
(k),
H
2
(N k),
H
/
2
(k),
H
/
2
(N k) = (1
2
/
E
0
)
G(k)'[S
n
(k)] and Var'[X(k)][S
n
(k),
H
2
(k),
H
2
(N
k),
H
/
2
(k),
H
/
2
(N k) = 0.5(
2
+
2
)
G(k), respectively.
Therefore, we get [27, Sec. VB]
Pr
_
'[X(k)] < 0['[S
n
(k)] = c,
H
2
(k),
H
2
(N k),
H
/
2
(k),
H
/
2
(N k)
_
= Q
(1
2
/E
0
)
2
G(k)
2
+
2
Q
_
_
G(k)
2
+
2
_
(30)
where G(k) = [H(k)[
2
+[H(N k)[
2
+[H
/
(k)[
2
+[H
/
(N
k)[
2
, and H
/
(k) denotes the CFR associated with either
Subband 2 or Subband 3. The approximation in (30) follows
from (29) since
H
2
(k) H(k)/(1
2
/E
0
) and
H
/
2
(k)
H
/
(k)/(1
2
/E
0
).
From Section IIB, one can nd that [H(k)[ corresponds to
the shadowing factor X and, thus, is lognormal distributed,
i.e., 20 log
10
[H(k)[ ^(0,
2
x
). Since [H(k)[ and [H(N
k)[ are not independent, Pr'[X(k)] < 0['[S
n
(k)] = c is
upper bounded under the assumption that [H(k)[ = [H(N
k)[ = [H
/
(k)[ = [H
/
(N k)[ (without frequency or time
diversity), i.e.,
Pr u
n
(k) = 1['[S
n
(k)] = c
= Pr '[X(k)] < 0['[S
n
(k)] = c
2
x
Q
_
10
x
20
_
e
x
2
2
2
x
dx (31)
where
=
4
(
2
+
2
= 2
_
_
M
1
R
1,2
mse
SNR + 1
_
SNR
__
M
1
R
1,2
mse
+ 1
_
SNR + 1
_
E
0
.
Assuming that '[S
n
(k)] is equiprobably c, we have
Pr u
n
(k)'[S
n
(k)] <0 = Pr u
n
(k)=1 ['[S
n
(k)] =c
= Pr u
n
(k)=1 ['[S
n
(k)] =c .
A similar procedure can be applied to derive
Pr v
n
(k)[S
n
(k)] < 0, and we have
P
e
= Pr u
n
(k)'[S
n
(k)] < 0 = Pr v
n
(k)[S
n
(k)] < 0
which is approximately upper bounded by P
ub
e
, as shown
in (20).
APPENDIX C
DERIVATION OF
C
24
Following the denition of C
24
in Section IVA, we have
C
24
=E
_
(
H
4
H)(
H
2
H)
H
_
/E
_
H
2
_
=E
__
H
4
(k) H(k)
_ _
H
2
(k) H(k)
_
_
/E
0
(32)
for k T
1
, T
2
. From (7) and (8), we have
H
2
(k)H(k)=
h
[H(k1)+H(k+1)]2
h
H(k)+ (33)
k T
1
, T
2
, where is a zeromean complex Gaussian ran
dom variable comprising the channel noise from the rst stage
of channel estimation. From (16), it follows that
H
4
(k) H(k) =
h
_
H
3
(k 1) +
H
3
(k + 1)
_
+(1 2
h
)
H
3
(k) H(k), k T
1
, T
2
. (34)
Next, neglecting the headerdetection errors and referring to
(26), we obtain
E
_
H
3
(k
k
) [H(k)]
_
=
_
E
0
,
k
=0
(
k
)E
0
,
k
1, 2.
(35)
Noting that EH(k) = 0 and E
H
3
(k
k
) = 0 for
k
0, 1, 2 and applying (33)(35) to (32), we obtain
C
24
=
h
, which is the simplied form of C
24
.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to thank the Associate Editor and the
anonymous reviewers, whose valuable comments and sugges
tions improved the presentation of this paper.
REFERENCES
[1] A. Batra, J. Balakrishnan, G. R. Aiello, J. R. Foerster, and A. Dabak,
Design of a multiband OFDM system for realistic UWB channel envi
ronments, IEEE Trans. Microw. Theory Tech., vol. 52, no. 9, pp. 2123
2138, Sep. 2004.
[2] L. Yang and G. B. Giannakis, Ultrawideband communications: An idea
whose time has come, IEEE Signal Process. Mag., vol. 21, no. 6, pp. 26
54, Nov. 2004.
[3] L. Yang, Lowcomplexity diversity receiver for single/multiband
UWB, in Proc. IEEE Int. Workshop Signal Process. Adv. Wireless Com
mun., New York, Jun. 58, 2005, pp. 10531057.
[4] MultiBand OFDM Physical Layer Proposal for IEEE 802.15 Task
Group 3a, IEEE 802.15 Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Net
works (WPANs), Tech. Rep., IEEE P802.1504/0493r1TG3a, Sep. 2004.
[5] High Rate Ultra Wideband PHY and MAC Standard, Std. ECMA368,
Dec. 2005.
[6] C. Mishra, A. ValdesGarcia, F. Bahmani, A. Batra, E. SnchezSinencio,
and J. SilvaMartinez, Frequency planning and synthesizer architectures
for multiband OFDM UWB radios, IEEE Trans. Microw. Theory Tech.,
vol. 53, no. 12, pp. 37443756, Dec. 2005.
[7] Wireless universal serial bus specication, Universal Serial Bus Imple
menters Forum (USBIF), Revision 1.0, May 12, 2005. [Online]. Available:
http://www.usb.org
[8] H. Xu and L. Yang, Ultrawideband technology: Yesterday, today, and
tomorrow, in Proc. IEEE Radio Wireless Symp., Orlando, FL, Jan. 2224,
2008, pp. 715718.
[9] H. Xu and L. Yang, Differential UWB communications with digital
multicarrier modulation, IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 56, no. 1,
pp. 284295, Jan. 2008.
1366 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON VEHICULAR TECHNOLOGY, VOL. 59, NO. 3, MARCH 2010
[10] Q. Zou, A. Tarighat, and A. H. Sayed, Performance analysis of multiband
OFDM UWB communications with application to range improvement,
IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 56, no. 6, pp. 38643878, Nov. 2007.
[11] Y. Li, A. F. Molisch, and J. Zhang, Practical approaches to channel
estimation and interference suppression for OFDMbased UWB commu
nications, IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 5, no. 9, pp. 23172320,
Sep. 2006.
[12] Y. Li and H. Minn, Channel estimation and equalization in the presence
of timing offset in MBOFDM systems, in Proc. IEEE GLOBECOM,
Washington, DC, Nov. 2630, 2007, pp. 33893394.
[13] S. Zhou and G. B. Giannakis, Finitealphabet based channel estimation
for OFDM and related multicarrier systems, IEEE Trans. Commun.,
vol. 49, no. 8, pp. 14021414, Aug. 2001.
[14] J. Liu and J. Li, Parameter estimation and error reduction for OFDM
based WLANs, IEEE Trans. Mobile Comput., vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 152163,
Apr.Jun. 2004.
[15] R. Negi and J. Ciof, Pilot tone selection for channel estimation in a
mobile OFDM system, IEEE Trans. Consum. Electron., vol. 44, no. 3,
pp. 11221128, Aug. 1998.
[16] B. Muquet, M. de Courville, and P. Duhamel, Subspacebased blind and
semiblind channel estimation for OFDM systems, IEEE Trans. Signal
Process., vol. 50, no. 7, pp. 16991712, Jul. 2002.
[17] M. Morelli and U. Mengali, A comparison of pilotaided channel estima
tion methods for OFDM systems, IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 49,
no. 12, pp. 30653073, Dec. 2001.
[18] O. Edfors, M. Sandell, J. van de Beek, S. K. Wilson, and
P. O. Brjesson, OFDM channel estimation by singular value decom
position, IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 46, no. 7, pp. 931939, Jul. 1998.
[19] L. Deneire, P. Vandenameele, L. van der Perre, B. Gyselinckx, and
M. Engels, A low complexity ML channel estimator for OFDM, IEEE
Trans. Commun., vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 135140, Feb. 2003.
[20] J.C. Lin, Leastsquares channel estimation for mobile OFDM communi
cation on timevarying frequencyselective fading channels, IEEE Trans.
Veh. Technol., vol. 57, no. 6, pp. 35383550, Nov. 2008.
[21] J. Kim, J. Park, and D. Hong, Performance analysis of channel estimation
in OFDM systems, IEEE Signal Process. Lett., vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 6062,
Jan. 2005.
[22] A. Saleh and R. Valenzuela, A statistical model for indoor multipath
propagation, IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. SAC5, no. 2, pp. 128
137, Feb. 1987.
[23] J. R. Foerster, Channel Modeling SubCommittee Final Report, IEEE
802.1502/490r1SG3a, Feb. 2003.
[24] B. Muquet, Z. Wang, G. B. Giannakis, M. de Courville, and P. Duhamel,
Cyclic prexing or zero padding for wireless multicarrier transmis
sions? IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 50, no. 12, pp. 21362148, Dec. 2002.
[25] F. Adachi, BER analysis of 2PSK, 4PSK, and 16QAM with decision
feedback channel estimation in frequencyselective slow Rayleigh fad
ing, IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 48, no. 5, pp. 15631572, Sep. 1999.
[26] X. Cai and G. B. Giannakis, Error probability minimizing pilots for
OFDM with MPSK modulation over Rayleighfading channels, IEEE
Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 146155, Jan. 2004.
[27] J. G. Proakis, Digital Communications, 4th ed. New York:
McGrawHill, 2001, ch. 5.
[28] H. V. Sorensen, M. T. Heideman, and C. S. Burrus, On comput
ing the splitradix FFT, IEEE Trans. Acoust., Speech, Signal Process.,
vol. ASSP34, no. 1, pp. 152156, Feb. 1986.
[29] H. V. Sorensen and C. S. Burrus, Efcient computation of the DFT with
only a subset of input or output points, IEEE Trans. Signal Process.,
vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 11841200, Mar. 1993.
Zhongjun Wang (M02SM09) received the
B.Eng. and M.Sc. degrees in electrical engineer
ing from Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai,
China, in 1987 and 1990, respectively, and the
M.Eng. and Ph.D. degrees in electrical engineer
ing from the National University of Singapore,
Singapore, in 1996 and 2009, respectively.
From 1990 to 1994, he was a Research Staff
Member with Shanghai Jiao Tong University. From
1996 to 2004, he was a member of Technical Staff
with the Institute of Microelectronics, Singapore.
From 2004 to 2008, he was a Principal Engineer with Oki Techno Centre
Singapore. Since 2008, he has been a Senior Technical Consultant with
Wipro Techno Centre Singapore. His research interests include wireless
communications, digital signal processing, and verylargescale integration
implementation.
Yan Xin (S00M03) received the B.E. degree in
electronics engineering from Beijing University of
Technology, Beijing, China, in 1992 and the M.Sc.
degree in mathematics, the M.Sc. degree in elec
trical engineering, and the Ph.D. degree in electri
cal engineering from the University of Minnesota,
Minneapolis, in 1998, 2000, and 2003, respectively.
From 2004 to 2008, he was an Assistant Pro
fessor with the Department of Electrical and Com
puter Engineering, National University of Singapore,
Singapore. He is now a Research Staff Member with
NEC Laboratories America Inc., Princeton, NJ. His current research interests
include multipleinputmultipleoutput communications, network information
theory, and cognitive radio.
Dr. Xin was the corecipient of the 2004 IEEE Marconi Prize Paper Award in
wireless communications.
George Mathew (M01SM08) received the
M.Sc.(Eng.) and Ph.D. degrees in electrical and
communication engineering from the Indian Institute
of Science, Bangalore, India, in 1989 and 1994,
respectively.
From 1994 to 1996, he held postdoctoral appoint
ments with the Indian Institute of Science and the
National University of Singapore, Singapore. From
1996 to 2003, he was with the Coding and Signal
Processing Department, Data Storage Institute,
Singapore. From 2002 to 2006, he was an Assis
tant Professor with the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineer
ing, National University of Singapore. During 20062007, he was a Senior
Engineer with the Advanced Technology Division, Hitachi Global Storage
Technology Inc., San Jose, CA. Since 2007, he has been a Principal Engineer
with the Read Channel Architecture Division, LSI Corporation, Milpitas, CA.
His main research interests include signal processing for data storage and
communications. His focus includes channel modeling and characterization,
equalization, synchronization, detection, reducedcomplexity algorithms, and
the development of drivefriendly channel features for characterization and
optimization.
Xiaodong Wang (S98M98SM04F08) re
ceived the Ph.D. degree in electrical engineering
from Princeton University, Princeton, NJ.
He is a Professor of electrical engineering with
the Department of Electrical Engineering, Columbia
University, New York, NY. His research interests
include the general areas of computing, signal pro
cessing, and communications. He has extensively
published in these areas, including a recent book
entitled Wireless Communication Systems: Advanced
Techniques for Signal Reception (PrenticeHall,
2003). His current research interests include wireless communications, statisti
cal signal processing, and genomic signal processing.
Dr. Wang has served as an Associate Editor of the IEEE TRANSACTIONS
ON COMMUNICATIONS, the IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON WIRELESS COMMU
NICATIONS, the IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON SIGNAL PROCESSING, and the
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON INFORMATION THEORY. He was the recipient of
the 1999 National Science Foundation CAREER Award and the 2001 IEEE
Communications Society and Information Theory Society Joint Paper Award.