2694
7, JULY 2008
Channel Estimation Approach with
Variable Pilot Density to Mitigate Interference over
Time-Selective Cellular OFDM Systems
Sungeun Lee, Student Member, IEEE, Kyungchul Kwak, Student Member, IEEE,
Jihyung Kim, Student Member, IEEE, and Daesik Hong, Senior Member, IEEE
Abstract—We propose a new channel estimation technique to
mitigate interference with the aid of pilot density discrepancy
in a cellular OFDM system, especially for 3GPP systems. The
proposed estimator applies interference mitigation to pilot sym-
bols, using repeated interference features according to the pilot
subcarrier distance. In order to use this property, the proposed
estimator employs a specific pilot structure which consists of
two types of pilot symbols with different pilot density. The
combination of interference alleviation and pilot rearrangement
not only makes the channel estimation robust to the time-
selectivity of the channel but also reduces the number of pilot
subcarriers needed to estimate the channel.
To clarify the advantages of the proposed method, the average
mean square errors (MSE) of the frequency channel estimate are
derived for the proposed estimator with unequal pilot density,
and it is compared with general estimators with equal pilot
density. Numerical analysis and simulation results confirm that
the proposed estimator with unequal density relationship outper-
forms the estimators over practical time-varying environments in
terms of MSE performance and pilot overhead efficiency.
Index Terms—OFDM, interference mitigation, channel estima-
tion, pilot density, time-selective channel.
I. I NTRODUCTION
O RTHOGONAL frequency division multiplexing
(OFDM) has achieved much popularity in wireless
communication systems due to its high data rate capability
and robustness to multi-path delay. The OFDM system
has recently been applied to many cellular systems, and
is designed to ensure both high throughput and high user
mobility [1][2].
There are few channel estimation approaches in the multi-
cell environment for mitigating the adjacent channel interfer-
ence (ACI), since it is difficult to coordinate the ACI over
entire cellular networks [3][4]. These estimators randomize
pilot interference by scrambling codes [3][4] and cancel out
Manuscript received January 30, 2007; revised September 6 and December
20, 2007; accepted December 21, 2007. The associate editor coordinating
the review of this letter and approving it for publication was A. Swami.
This work is supported in part by the MIC (Ministry of Information and
Communication), Korea, under the ITRC (Information Technology Research
Center) support program supervised by the IITA (Institute of Information
Technology Assessment), and in part by Korea Science & Engineering
Foundation through the NRL Program (Grant R0A-2007-000-20043-0).
S. Lee, K. Kwak, and D. Hong are with the Department of Electrical and
Electronic Engineering, Yonsei University, Seoul, Korea (e-mail: {softmind,
chulli, daesikh}@yonsei.ac.kr).
J. Kim is with the Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institudte
(ETRI), Daejeon, Korea.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TWC.2008.070114.
1536-1276/08$25.00 
Authorized licensed use limited to: VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY. Downloaded on August 4, 2009 at 10:33 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS, VOL. 7, NO.
interference in order to improve performance [3]. However, the
cancellation method is difficult to implement since the receiver
needs to know all the channel impulse responses (CIR) and
scrambling codes of the adjacent cells in order to eliminate
the ACI. One alternative is to avoid the ACI by adjusting pilot
and data arrangement. The pilot positions can be adjusted
to alleviate the ACI, so that the positions of different cells
are either pseudo-randomly [4] or exclusively [5] distributed.
However, it is impossible to design the pilot positions for
all cells orthogonally; therefore collisions are bound to occur
between the pilot positions of some cells. In addition, the pilots
of the serving cell can fall on the same subcarrier frequency
as the data symbol of the interfering cell. Since pilots usually
have higher energy than data symbols, the data symbol in the
interfering cell could be impaired by these pilot symbols. In
order to minimize this data symbol degradation, common pilot
symbols for all cells should be considered.
In single-cell OFDM systems, the DFT-based time-domain
channel estimation approach shows a noise reduction gain
compared to frequency-domain LS (least square) estimation
[6]. This is because the time-domain estimator uses the
knowledge of the channel length [7][8]. For the multi-cell
environment, the time-domain estimator is also appropriate
for obtaining the CIR, since the estimator can decrease the
effect of the ACI the same way the noise reduction does in
the single-cell environment.
For the DFT-based estimator, the observed ACI can be
duplicated in the time domain, and this repetition of the ACI
is determined by the distance between pilot subcarriers, i.e.,
pilot density in the frequency domain [9]. In this paper, a
new channel estimation technique with interference mitigation
using this repetition property is introduced for cellular OFDM
downlink systems, especially those based on 3GPP systems
[1]. The proposed estimator operates on frame structures with
unequal pilot density. Unbalancing the pilot density makes
it possible to gather knowledge about the ACI, and this
information can be utilized to mitigate the ACI.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows: Section II
explains an OFDM downlink system model in a multi-cell
environment. The signal and interference model are intro-
duced, and the time correlation of the channel is derived in
this section. Section III derives the estimated channel impulse
response (CIR) for pilot symbols with different pilot densities,
and the repetition characteristics of the ACI are observed for
c 2008 IEEE
 LEE et al.: CHANNEL ESTIMATION APPROACH WITH VARIABLE PILOT DENSITY TO MITIGATE INTERFERENCE
an unequal pilot density structure. The interference mitigation
method for utilizing this duplication property is presented in
this section as well. The average mean square error (MSE) is
derived in Section IV for both equal and unequal pilot density
structures so as to compare their performance. The relationship
between performance and pilot efficiency is investigated in
Section V. Section VI presents our conclusions.
II. S YSTEM M ODEL
This section briefly describes the channel model in general
OFDM systems, and introduces the assumption and the mod-
eling of signal and interference in cellular OFDM systems.
A. Channel Model
The baseband representation of the channel frequency re-
sponse (CFR) in an OFDM system is given by

L−1
H[k; q] = h[l; q]e−j2πkl/N ,
l=0
where H[k; q] is the channel response at the kth subcarrier,
h[l; q] is the complex amplitude of the lth channel path. and
the signals are transmitted or received through the qth OFDM
symbol. L denotes the maximum length of the channel and N
represents the number of subcarriers in one OFDM symbol.
To avoid inter-symbol interference (ISI), we assume the cyclic
prefix(CP), Ncp , is sufficiently longer than L.
We also assume the system environment is rich and uniform
scattering. Due to the mobility of the mobile station (MS), the
channel is time-selective, and the channel taps h[l; q] s are
wide-sense stationary (WSS) narrowband complex Gaussian
processes, which are independent for different paths [10].
We assume that h[l; q] has the same normalized correlation
function rh [Δq] for all l. Hence,
Δ the adjacent BSs, so that these signals could be considered to
rhl [Δq] = E {h[l; q + Δq]h∗ [l; q]} = σh2 l rh [Δq] ,
where σh2 l is the average power of the lth path and rh [0] is
equal to one [11]. The correlation function of the frequency
Δ In addition, we assume all BSs are coordinated in DL/UL
response between Δq separated OFDM symbols is rH [Δq] =
∗ 2 2
E {H[k; q + Δq]H [k; q]} = σH rh [Δq], where σH is the
 2
L−1
2 Δ
total average power of the CIR defined as σH = σhl .
Without loss of generality, we also assume that 1.
For an OFDM system with symbol length Ts , the correla-
tion function for n OFDM symbols apart can be written as
rh [n] = J0 (2πnfd Ts ) from Jakes’ model where J0 (x) is the
zeroth-order Bessel function of the first kind. In the above
expression, fd is the Doppler frequency with respect to the
vehicle speed and the carrier frequency [12].
B. Signal and Interference Model
Let us consider an OFDM downlink system in a multi-cell
environment. We assume that the desired MS is connected
to a specific BS, called the serving BS, and the serving BS
transmits data to the desired MS. In addition, the MS is
surrounded by many adjacent BSs, called interfering BSs.
Since both the serving BS and interfering BSs are transmitting
Authorized licensed use limited to: VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY. Downloaded on August 4, 2009 at 10:33 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
2695
data simultaneously, the MS suffers from interference caused
by the interfering BSs. When the MS is already synchronized
to the desired BS, the MS received signal is given by
B N
√ √ −j2πkn/N
Y [k; q] = ρ0 H[k; q]X[k; q] + V [k; q] + ρb e
b=1
 
∞ N
  −1
· hb [n; q + t] ∗ xb [n −(τb −τ0 )−tNT ; q + t] ,
t=−∞ n=0
(3)
where X[k; q] and Y [k; q] are the pilot sequence of the serving
BS and the received signal at the kth subcarrier, respectively,
and V [k; q] is the AWGN with zero mean and variance σV2
at the receiver. We assume many interfering BSs have the
same pilot subcarriers in order to minimize the disturbance to
the data symbols of other cells. NB is the total number of
interfering BSs using the same pilot subcarriers in the system,
so there are one serving BS and NB interfering BSs. ρ0 and
(1) ρb indicate a lognormal long-term fading from the serving
BS and the bth interfering BS, respectively. τ0 and τb are
the timing offsets caused by propagation delay of the signal
for the desired BS and the bth interfering BS, respectively.
The OFDM symbol length is NT = N + Ncp , and hb [n; q]
and xb [n; q] are the nth channel impulse response and the
nth transmitted signal from the bth interfering BS in the time
domain, respectively, and the operator ∗ indicates convolution.
Let us assume the cellular system is in an urban microcell
environment [1]. In that case, the interfering signals from some
adjacent interfering BSs can be received within the cyclic
prefix at the receiver since cell size is small. Since the inter-
ference is usually dominated by signals from some adjacent
interfering BSs [13], most portions of the interference signals
could be received without ISI. Although the signals from
faraway interfering BSs are received with ISI, the interference
powers of these BSs are extremely small compared to those of
(2)
be negligible at the receiver. Therefore, for the convenience of
the analysis, we assume the signals from the interfering BSs
are also synchronized to the MS.
phases, so there is no disturbance between two phases [2]. The
received signal at the MS is then simply expressed as

NB
√ √
2
l=0 Y [k; q] = ρ0 H[k; q]X[k; q] + ρb Hb [k; q]Xb [k; q] + V [k; q],
σH = b=1
(4)
where Hb [k; q] and Xb [k; q] are the CFR and the pilot
sequence of the bth interfering BS at the kth subcarrier,
respectively. If ρ0 is known at the receiver, the least square
(LS) estimated CFR at the MS is expressed
1
Ĥ[k; q] = √ X ∗ [k; q]Y [k; q]
ρ0 (5)
= H[k; q] + I[k; q] + W [k; q],
where W [k; q] is the AWGN with variance σW 2
= σV2 /ρ0 , and
I[k; q] is the amount of interference from the interfering BSs
at the kth subcarrier, which is defined as
NB 
 ρb
I[k; q]  Hb [k; q]Xb [k; q]X ∗ [k; q]. (6)
ρ0
b=1
 2696 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS, VOL. 7, NO. 7, JULY 2008

freq (subcarrier)
The amount of interference is affected by not only the rel- :pilot subcarrier
MCPS SCPS
time (symbol)
ative long-term fading gain between the serving BS and the :data subcarrier

interfering BSs, but also by the cross-correlation of the data

between the serving BS and the interfering BSs. Usually, each ΔM ΔM
BS uses different pseudo-random binary sequences (PRBS) ΔS
to distinguish the desired BS from the interfering BSs and
to average the interference from the adjacent BSs [2][3].
Since the data Xm [k; q] and Xn [l; q] are independent for
(m, k) = (n, l), the interference is approximately distributed

…
as zero-mean complex Gaussian where the interference power

…
…
NB
is calculated as σI2 = σH 2
ρ0 . Consequently, the received
ρb
b=1
2
average SIR and SNR are expressed as ΓSIR = σH /σI2 and
2 2
ΓSNR = σH /σW , respectively, when the magnitude of pilot 0 1 2  Q 0 1 2  Q

sequences is normalized to 1. UTB

(Unit Transmission Block)
Moreover, since the time-selectivity of the channel is
only caused by the movement of the MS in downlink sys- (a) equal pilot density UTB structure (b) unequal pilot density UTB struc-
(E-UTB) ture (U-UTB)
tems, this MS motion affects both the time-selectivity of
the CFR H[k; q] and the interference I[k; q]. Hence, the Fig. 1. Example of equal and unequal pilot density UTB structures. U-UTB
interference correlation function can be defined as rI [Δq] = consists of MCPS with relatively high density pilot symbols and SCPS with
relatively low density. The distances between pilot subcarriers are ΔM and
E {I[k; q + Δq]I ∗ [k; q]} = σI2 rH [Δq]. ΔS for MCPS and SCPS, respectively.
After IFFT processing, the interference in the time domain,
I[n; q], is denoted as MCPS
ΔM

N −1
1 Interference CFR
I[n; q]  I[k; q] ej2πkn/N . (7) For
CIR Estimation CIR Estimation
N Pilot
Symbol
Estimation Interpolation &
k=0 Equalization
SCPS
Since the multiplication term in (6), Xb [k; q]X ∗ [k; q], is also ΔS Interference
Cancellation
pseudo-random, the response of I[n; q] is no longer concen-
trated in the first few taps, but is distributed throughout the Fig. 2. Proposed channel estimator using interference mitigation technique
whole N samples, producing an interference averaging effect. with unbalanced pilot density. Interference is estimated for MCPS, and this
estimated responsed is used for SCPS to eliminate interference.

III. N EW C HANNEL E STIMATOR USING AN ACI

M ITIGATION T ECHNIQUE WITH P ILOT D ENSITY
D ISCREPANCY
A. Pilot Structure combined with MCPS and SCPS
Generally, channel estimation and interpolation are per-
formed for every block, and we call this block the unit
transmission block (UTB). For example, a block could be a
sub-frame or transmit time interval (TTI) in 3GPP LTE [1], a
slot in IEEE 802.16e [2], and so on.
Fig. 1 shows two kinds of UTB structures with respect to
pilot symbol density. What they have in common is that a
UTB consists of Q + 1 OFDM symbols, two pilot symbols
at the borders and Q − 1 data symbols inside the block for
the sake of simplicity. The only difference between two UTBs
is whether or not the pilot symbol densities are the same in
a UTB. The first UTB is composed of pilot symbols with
equal pilot density (Fig. 1(a)). On the other hand, the second
UTB is formed from two types of pilot symbols with different
pilot densities. We define these two symbols as multi-cell pilot
symbols (MCPS) with relatively high density and single-cell
pilot symbols (SCPS) with relatively low density, respectively
(Fig. 1(b)). Now, let us call the first UTB that has equal pilot
density “E-UTB”, and the second one that has unequal pilot
density “U-UTB”, respectively.
At this point, let us focus on the objective of these pilot sym-
bols for channel estimation. Usually, the ACI of the interfering
BSs is averaged by PRBS to randomize the pilot interference
[2]. In the MCPS, a lower amount of interference can be
observed for CIR estimation as the number of pilot subcarriers
increases. The minimum number of pilot subcarriers needed
to estimate the CIR is L. To reduce the interference level
of this estimate to 1/α, the MCPS needs to use at least
NM ≥ αL pilot subcarriers, where NM denotes the number
of pilot subcarriers in the MCPS. Consequently, the distance
between two pilot subcarriers ΔM needs to be equal to or less
than N/NM . In order to alleviate the effect of the ACI as
much as possible, more pilot subcarriers should be exploited
in the MCPS (larger α value).
In the U-UTB, the MCPS is utilized to observe the response
of the ACI as well as the CIR of the serving BS. This ACI
response is saved in a buffer to mitigate interference for the
SCPS. On the other hand, the SCPS has fewer pilot subcarriers
than the MCPS, and only estimates the CIR of the serving
BS without separating out the ACI. The SCPS only concerns
itself with the CIR of the serving BS, meaning that only
NS ≥ L pilot subcarriers are used to estimate the CIR [8].
The pilot subcarrier distance in the SCPS, ΔS , is then equal to
or less than N/NS . In the SCPS, a relatively greater amount
of interference is shown in the CIR estimation compared to
the interference in the MCPS, since NS < NM . However,
this increased interference can be mitigated by interference
cancellation using the ACI observed in the MCPS.
Fig. 2 depicts the block diagram of the proposed estimator

Authorized licensed use limited to: VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY. Downloaded on August 4, 2009 at 10:33 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 LEE et al.: CHANNEL ESTIMATION APPROACH WITH VARIABLE PILOT DENSITY TO MITIGATE INTERFERENCE 2697

using a new mitigation technique when the unequal pilot The ith segmented CIR within [0, N/ΔS ) can then be
density condition is satisfied. As the figure shows, the CIR expressed as
is first estimated from the pilot symbols in the time domain.   ΔM −1  
Next, the interference is estimated or eliminated from the (i) N N
ĥM [n; 0]  ĥM ((n + i ))N ; 0 N δ n−j ,
estimated CIR, depending on what the pilot symbol is. Then, ΔS j=0
ΔM
all the CIRs in one UTB are calculated using time-domain (10)
interpolation between the outermost pilot symbols. If Q = 1, for 0 ≤ i < R where the notation ((n))N denotes (n modulo
the entire CIR in a UTB is calculated directly from the pilot N ). The ith segmented CIR is rewritten as follows:
symbols. However for Q ≥ 2, an interpolation technique ⎧
(0)
is necessary in order to estimate the channel for the data ⎪
⎪ h[n; 0] + I (0) [n; 0] + wM [n; 0],
⎪
⎪
symbols by using the channel information from the pilot ⎨ for i = 0, n ∈ [0, ΔNS ),
(i)
ĥM [n; 0] = (11)
symbols. In order to simplify our analysis, let us consider ⎪
⎪
(i)
I (i) [n; 0] + wM [n; 0],
linear interpolation in order to estimate the CIR between ⎪
⎪
⎩ for i = 0, n ∈ [0, ΔNS ),
the pilot symbols. The channel estimation at the qth OFDM
symbol using linear interpolation is given by (i)
where wM [n; 0] is the segmented AWGN of wM [n; 0] taking
Q−q q the same statistics as wM [n; 0]. I (i) [n; 0] is the averaged ACI
ĥ [n; q] = ĥ [n; 0] + ĥ [n; Q] , 1 ≤ q ≤ Q − 1. (8) in the ith segment, defined as
Q Q
Δ
M −1  
After the entire set of CIRs is obtained via linear interpolation, N
I (i) [n; 0]  I ((n + (i − jR) ))N ; 0 (12)
the CIRs are fed into a FFT block to obtain the CFR in the j=0
ΔS
frequency domain. Finally, equalization is performed in the
frequency domain using this CFR. for 0 ≤ i < R, n ∈ [0, ΔNS ). In order to keep the analysis
simple, let us assume the segmented ACIs I (i) [n; 0] and
I (j) [n; 0] are independent for ∀i = j. As shown in (11), the
B. Interference Estimation Using MCPS CIR is expressed only in the 0th segment, and the others are
filled with the ACI. Simple dividing ĥM [n; 0] into small parts
First, we examine the features of the ACI at the MCPS enables us to collect the extra interference that has no effect
to estimate the ACI. From the MCPS, the CIRs from the on the channel estimation on MCPS. Hence, the 0th segment
serving BS and the interference from the interfering BSs can is used for the CIR estimation, and the others are used for the
be estimated within [0, N/ΔM ). ACI estimation.
Now let us look at the features of the CIR and the ACI in
the MCPS (examples of CIR and ACI features are described
in Fig. 3(a)). To simplify the equation, it presupposes that the C. Interference Mitigation for the SCPS
0th OFDM symbol is the MCPS. The estimated CIR ĥM [n; 0] In contrast to the MCPS, the SCPS does not concern itself
from the MCPS is then expressed as with reducing the ACI. The SCPS has only NS (≤ NM ) pilot
subcarriers to estimate the CIR, so the SCPS can estimate the
N/ΔM −1 CIR of the serving BS but not mitigate the ACI. Consequently,
ΔM 
ĥM [n; 0] = Ĥ[ΔM k; 0] ej2πΔM kn/N the estimated CIR in the SCPS includes a much greater
N
k=0 amount of the ACI than in the MCPS, thereby degrading the
−1 N/ΔM −1
ΔM 
N  performance of the estimator unless this increased interference
j2πΔM k n−l
= (h[l; 0] + I[l; 0]) e N
can be mitigated. Now let’s take a look at how the ACI is
N
l=0 k=0 increased and could be alleviated in the SCPS (examples are
+ wM [n; 0] described in Figs. 3(b) and 3(c)).
M −1
Δ   1) Accumulated Interference: When the MCPS and the
N
= (h[n; 0] + I[n; 0]) N δ n−j SCPS are Q symbols apart as shown in Fig. 1(b), the estimated
ΔM
j=0 CIR ĥS [n; Q] from the SCPS is given by
+ wM [n; 0] N/ΔS −1
(9) ΔS 
ĥS [n; Q] = Ĥ[ΔS k; Q] ej2πΔS kn/N
N
k=0
for 0 ≤ n < N/ΔM , where wM [n; 0] is the AWGN with Δ  
S −1
the variance ΔNM σW2
at the MCPS, and N denotes the N - N
= (h[n; Q] + I[n; Q]) N δ n−j
point circular convolution [9]. Because the pilots are allocated j=0
ΔS
at every ΔM subcarrier, the channel and the interference are
+ wS [n; Q],
cyclically repeated over every N/ΔM sample.
(13)
Let us now fragment the estimated response ĥM [n; 0] into
R segments with N/ΔS samples each, where R is the for 0 ≤ n < N/ΔS . The last term wS [n; Q] is the AWGN
segmentation ratio. This ratio is defined as R  ΔS /ΔM . with variance ΔNS σW
2
at the SCPS. The channel and the inter-
Note that R should be an integer. Stated another way, ΔS ference are repeated over every N/ΔS sample since the pilots
should be a multiple of ΔM . are allocated for every ΔS subcarrier. Hence the estimated

Authorized licensed use limited to: VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY. Downloaded on August 4, 2009 at 10:33 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 2698 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS, VOL. 7, NO. 7, JULY 2008

response is the same for every N/ΔS sample. In other words, channel segmented interference: I ( i ) [n;0 ]

all segments have the same channel estimate. Moreover, the

interference is circularly shifted as a unit of N/ΔS and stacked
0 1 2 3 time
at the receiver as derived in (13). Therefore, the estimated CIR
N / ΔS 2N / ΔS 3N / Δ S N / ΔM
ĥs [n; Q] can be expressed as follows:
  (a) CIR and segmented interference I (i) [n; 0] at MCPS
ΔS −1
N
ĥS [n; Q] = h[n; Q] + I ((n − j ))N ; Q 0 1
+
2 3

ΔS 3 0 1 2
j=0 +
R −1 2 3 0 1
+ wS [n; Q] (14) stacked interference: ∑I (i )
[n;Q ] 1 2
+ 3 0
i =0
R−1

= h[n; Q] + I (i) [n; Q] + wS [n; Q],
1 1 1 1
i=0 2 2 2 2
3 3 3 3
for 0 ≤ n < N/ΔS . As shown in (14), the amount of the ACI 0 0 0 0 time

increases by R times compared to the ACI in the MCPS. By N / ΔS 2N / ΔS 3N / Δ S N / ΔM

the repetition property according to the pilot density [9], the (b) Repeated CIR and stacked interference at SCPS
interference can be expressed as the summation of I (i) [n; Q].
irreducible interference: I (0) [n;Q ]
This means that the SCPS ACI feature can be examined on
MCPS by unbalancing the pilot density.
2) Mitigating Interference: While the amount of the ACI
increases by R times in the SCPS, as stated before, it is
0 0 0 0 time
possible to mitigate this ACI by interference cancellation (IC).
N / ΔS 2N / ΔS 3N / Δ S N / ΔM
Since the ACI in the SCPS can be expressed as the collection
of the segmented ACIs in the MCPS, as shown in (12) and (c) CIR and irreducible interference after interference elimination at SCPS
(14), R − 1 pieces of the ACI could be mitigated by R − 1 Fig. 3. Features of channel and interference in accordance with the pilot
pieces of the estimated interference in (11) if the ACI is density over time-invariant environment, segmentation ratio R = 4.
not greatly changed by the time-selectivity of the channel.
Consequently, the CIR after eliminating the ACI, ĥS,IC [n; Q],
is expressed as IC process works. In the example, let us assume the channel
R−1
 and the interference are time-invariant, i.e., h[n; 0] = h[n; Q]
(i) and I[n; 0] = I[n; Q]. The noise is neglected and the seg-
ĥS,IC [n; Q] = ĥS [n; Q] − ĥM [n; 0]
i=1 mentation factor is R = 4. The channel and the interference
(0)
= h[n; Q] + I [n; Q] + wS [n; Q] (15) are observed within the interval [0, N/ΔM ), and this observed
response is broken into R = 4 parts. Each part is numbered
 (i)
R−1 
− wM [n; 0] + ν (i) [n; 0] , from 0 to 3 to allow for easy recognition of the segment.
i=1 Fig. 3(a) shows the features of the CIR and the interference
at the MCPS. Since L ≤ N/ΔS < N/ΔM , the channel is
for 0 ≤ n < N/ΔS where the time varying error of the ith
only expressed in the 0th segment, and the other segments
segmented ACI is written as ν (i) [n; q] = I (i) [n; q]−I (i) [n; q+
are filled with the interference from the interfering BSs. The
Q]. Compared to (14), R − 1 interferences are eliminated
CIR and the interference response at the SCPS are depicted in
whereas R − 1 noises and time varying errors are appended
Fig. 3(b). Since the estimated response is repeated over every
to the estimated CIR.
N/ΔS sample, the response in Fig. 3(a) is duplicated 4 times
Although the amount of noise is increased by R times
within the interval [0, N/ΔM ), and these duplicated responses
compared to (14), the noise is still negligible for interference-
are piled up in the order of N/ΔS , circular-shifted.
limited systems [14]. While time-varying errors are also in-
Nevertheless, this stacked interference can be eliminated
troduced by outdated interference in the IC, the amount of
easily since the accumulated interference can be considered
error ν (i) [n; 0] is usually smaller than the interference response
to be the pile of interference observed at the MCPS, i.e.,
I (i) [n; 0] or I (i) [n; Q] itself unless I (i) [n; 0] and I (i) [n; Q] R−1 (i)
are totally independent, i.e., the distance between two pilot i=0 I [n; Q]. The proposed IC process for the channel
estimation is depicted in Fig. 3(c). The IC process eliminates
symbols Q is quite a bit farther than the coherence time of the
3 interference parts from Fig. 3(b), and only the irreducible
channel [10]. This means that the amount of noise and time-
response I 0 [n; Q] with the CIR remains for channel estima-
varying error is much lower than the amount of interference
tion. In Figs. 3(a) and 3(c), the amount of interference in the
itself in the system. Consequently, ĥS,IC [n; Q] from the SCPS
SCPS is the same as that observed in the MCPS by applying
is able to achieve estimation performance similar to that of
IC. Consequently, the performance of the CIR estimation
ĥM [n; 0] from the MCPS in terms of the amount of ACI.
for the SCPS can be identical to the performance for the
MCPS when the IC process works. Therefore, the proposed
D. Example of Interference Estimation and Mitigation estimator using interference mitigation only uses NM + NS
Fig. 3 describes a simplified example of the channel esti- pilot subcarriers with U-UTB structure, whereas the estimator
mate for the MCPS and the SCPS as a way of showing how the without cancelation needs 2NM subcarriers to support almost

Authorized licensed use limited to: VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY. Downloaded on August 4, 2009 at 10:33 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 LEE et al.: CHANNEL ESTIMATION APPROACH WITH VARIABLE PILOT DENSITY TO MITIGATE INTERFERENCE 2699

the same MSE performance. This means that the proposed close to that of MCPS for a slow fading environment in spite
estimator makes the system more efficient in terms of pilot of the lower number of pilot subcarriers. In addition, the
overhead. MSE for SCPS adopting interference elimination does not
diverge, in spite of the propagation error caused by outdated
IV. MSE A NALYSIS OF CFR ESTIMATION interference, which converges at most to twice εPS even if
To evaluate the performance of the channel estimator, we the channel is extremely time-selective (e.g., rH [Q] = 0).
derived the average mean square error (MSE) of the CFR
in the frequency domain [15]. The average MSE of CFR B. Data Symbol MSE
estimation in a UTB is written as The MSE for data symbols for the proposed estimator with
 
εPL εPR 2 interference cancellation is similarly calculated and compared
ε̄Q (εPL , εPR , εD ) = + + 1− εD (16) to that of other estimators without mitigation technique. For
Q+1 Q+1 Q+1
CFR estimation of data symbols, the linear interpolation
where εPL and εPR denote the MSE of CFR estimation for the
between two pilot symbols is performed using (8) in the time
leftmost and the rightmost pilot symbols, respectively, and εD
domain, and the interpolated CIR is then converted to the
for the linear interpolated data symbols in a UTB.
interpolated CFR by FFT processing. Let εDM , εDS , and εDS,IC
Since both UTB structures receive two pilot symbols to
be the average MSE of the interpolated CFRs between two
interpolate the channel in one UTB, both UTBs have the same
MCPSs, MCPS and SCPS without IC, and MCPS and SCPS
processing delay in obtaining the entire channel. Although IC
with IC, respectively. The CFR MSE values for data symbols
process should be applied by the U-UTB for the SCPS, it
are also derived as follows:
can be performed together when the CFR of the SCPS is
calculated. If there is an indicator as to whether the pilot εDM = γQ + θ {λQ + (1 − λQ )rH [Q]} σI2 + θλQ σW
2
, (20)
symbol is a SCPS or not, the IC process can be performed  
R+1
simply on the SCPS. εDS = γQ + θ λQ + (1 − λQ )rH [Q] σI2
Now let us derive the MSE of the proposed estimator 2 (21)
with the mitigation technique and compare it to that of other R+1 2
+θ λQ σW ,
estimators. 2
εDS,IC = γQ + θ {RλQ + (1 − RλQ )rH [Q]} σI2
2 (22)
A. Pilot Symbol MSE + θRλQ σW ,
We can now derive the MSE for pilot symbols using the where λQ = 2Q−1
and
3Q
mitigation technique, and compare the MSE of pilot symbols
without the elimination method with respect to the pilot 4  Q−q
Q−1
density. Let εPM , εPS , and εPS,IC be the average MSE of CFR γQ = (1 + λQ ) rH [0]+(1 − λQ ) rH [Q]− rH [q].
Q q=1 Q − 1
estimation for MCPS, SCPS without IC, and SCPS with IC,
respectively. The MSE values of CFR estimation for pilot (23)
symbols are derived as follows:
 2  C. Total average MSE
 
εPM = E ĤM [k; 0] − H[k; 0] The total MSE of the proposed estimator with mitigation
(17)
  technique is also expressed and compared to that of other
= θ σI2 + σW 2
,
 estimators. Let εU-UTB,IC (Q), εE-UTB (Q), and εU-UTB (Q) de-
2  note the average MSE of the CFR estimation for the proposed
 
εPS = E ĤS [k; Q] − H[k; Q]
(18) estimator using interference mitigation, the average MSE for
  the estimator for E-UTB and U-UTB, respectively. The total
= θR σI2 + σW 2
,
 average MSE in estimating the CFR can, using (16), be
2 
  expressed as
εPS,IC = E ĤS,IC [k; Q] − H[k; Q]
  εU-UTB,IC (Q) = ε̄Q (εPM , εPS,IC , εDS,IC ).
= θ (1 + 2 (R − 1) (1 − rH [Q])) σI2 + (2R − 1) σW 2
,
εE-UTB (Q) = ε̄Q (εPM , εPM , εDM ),
(19)
εU-UTB (Q) = ε̄Q (εPM , εPS , εDS ),
where θ = N L
ΔM is the noise reduction gain in the
CFR estimation, ĤM [k; 0], ĤS [k; Q], and ĤS,IC [k; Q] For the same Q, the MSE difference between εU-UTB,IC (Q)
are the estimated CFR for MCPS, SCPS without and εE-UTB (Q) is expressed as
IC, and SCPS with IC, respectively. Expressed εloss (Q) = εU-UTB,IC (Q) − εE-UTB (Q)
L−1 (0)   (24)
another way, ĤM [k; 0] = n=0 ĥM [n; 0]e
j2πnk/N
, = θαQ (R − 1) (1 − rH [Q])σI2 + σW
2
L−1
ĤS [k; Q] = ĥ [n; Q]e j2πnk/N
, and Ĥ [k; Q] =
L−1 n=0 S S,IC 2

n=0 ĥS,IC [n; Q]e

j2πnk/N
. Equations (17), (18) where αQ = 2Q −3Q+3
3Q(Q+1) . If the channel is slow time-varying
and (19) confirm that εPS,IC is roughly bounded by (e.g., rH [Q]  1), the two estimators are similar to each
εPM < εPS,IC < 2 εPS . This means the channel estimate other for large η, where η = σI2 /σW 2
is the interference
accuracy of SCPS using interference mitigation could be over noise ratio (INR). This means the proposed estimator

Authorized licensed use limited to: VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY. Downloaded on August 4, 2009 at 10:33 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 2700
TABLE I
F RAME PARAMETERS FOR E-UTB AND U-UTB. P ILOT SYMBOLS ARE ALLOCATED EVENLY IN THE TIME DOMAIN , AND MCPS AND SCPS ARE
ASSIGNED IN TURN FOR U-UTB.
Frame Identifier
Basic UTB structure
Total OFDM symbols
Total pilot symbols
Pilot symbol distance (Q)
Pilot subcarrier distance (Δ)
Overall pilot overhead (β)
(pilot density×# of pilot symbols)
using interference mitigation can show a comparable degree of
estimation accuracy comparable to the conventional estimator,
while exploiting a smaller number of pilot subcarriers.
V. N UMERICAL R ESULTS AND E VALUATION
To evaluate the performance of the estimators, let us
consider a cellular OFDM downlink system over multipath
Rayleigh fading channels. We can assume a system bandwidth
of 10MHz and carrier frequency of 2.3GHz. The total number
of subcarriers, N , is 1024 and the CP length is 128. The
channel length is known, and is L = 26, the same as the
length of an ITU-R vehicular A channel. These parameters
are based on mobile WiMax system [2].
We also assume that the number of interfering BSs is
NB = 18. Actually, the interference power differs depending
on the location of the interfering BSs, because of pathloss and
shadowing. This long-term fading causes the strong interfer-
ence powers from some adjacent interfering BSs to dominate
the SIR [13]. The authors of [13] have already verified that
interference from more remote interfering BSs can typically
be ignored. Let us assume the interference power of each
interfering BS is the same as σI2 /NB (the assumption for
strong interferers in [13]). Regarding the receiver, it is of
little consequence how many interfering BSs exist and how
much each individual interferer affects to the system. What
is more important is what the level of the combined SIR
from those interfering BSs is. Therefore, the numerical and
simulation results are obtained on the received SIR(ΓSIR ) and
SNR(ΓSNR ).
The inter-site distance (ISD) is under 3km (urban microcell
environment), so that all propagated signals from interfering
BSs are received within the CP. In addition, the channel
variation between consecutive OFDM symbols is expressed
by the normalized Doppler frequency fd Ts , and is calculated
as fd Ts  2.45v · 10−4 when the speed of the MS is v[km/h]
(e.g. fd Ts  0.025 for 100 [km/h] MS).
A. Performance of the estimator for fixed pilot density
In order to conduct a fair comparison of the proposed
estimator using an interference mitigation technique with other
general estimators without mitigation, three frame structures,
each composed of several UTBs, are introduced as an ex-
ample. All the frame examples have almost the same pilot
overhead so that the performance can be compared fairly.
Since the performance is being verified for these specific frame
examples, we can do a roughly check on the superiority of
Authorized licensed use limited to: VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY. Downloaded on August 4, 2009 at 10:33 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS, VOL. 7, NO. 7, JULY 2008
FE−UTB [freq] FE−UTB [time] FU−UTB
E-UTB E-UTB U-UTB
29 29 29
5 29 8 (MCPS:4, SCPS:4)
7 1 4
4 24 MCPS:4, SCPS:16
1 / 23.2 1 / 24 1 / 23.2
(1/4 × 5/29) (1/24 × 29/29) (1/4 × 4/29 + 1/16 × 4/29)
the proposed estimator with interference mitigation from the
simulation results. The specific frame parameters are shown
in Table I.
The “FE−UTB [freq]” frame is designed to reduce the ACI
as much as possible for the slow time-varying environment. On
the other hand, the “FE−UTB [time]” frame is constructed to
be robust for time-selective channels. The general time-domain
channel estimator is applied for FE−UTB [freq] and FE−UTB
[time], and the proposed estimator based on unbalanced pilot
density is utilized for FU−UTB . As a reference, the time-
domain channel estimator not using an interference mitigation
method on FU−UTB is compared to the proposed estimator.
All pilot symbols in the frame satisfy the fundamental
condition of the density, i.e., N/Δ > L where Δ is the
distance between pilot subcarriers in a symbol. Hence, the CIR
can be obtained from just one pilot symbol even for a FE−UTB
[time] frame structure, which has the smallest number of pilot
subcarriers for a symbol. There is no interpolation error caused
by the time-selectivity of the channel for a FE−UTB [time]
frame structure because the pilots are allocated continuously
in the time direction. On the contrary, FE−UTB [freq] structure
reduces the ACI as much as possible by assigning the pilots
more frequently in the frequency domain.
For FU−UTB , the number of pilot subcarriers for the MCPS
and the SCPS is NM = N/4 and NS = N/16, respec-
tively. This means the segmentation factor in the FU−UTB
is R = 4. Actually, R could have larger values such as
8, 16 or 32, since these R values also satisfy the condition
R ≤ 2log2 N/L = 32. However, we have chosen R = 4 for
the sake of convenience in order to give the frame structures
the same pilot overhead.
Note that MCPS and SCPS are assigned in rotation for
FU−UTB frames. Since the channel estimation and interpo-
lation are performed by every UTB unit in the frame, the
order of the MCPS and the SCPS is irrelevant to the channel
estimation and interpolation. Even if the SCPS is received
earlier than the MCPS at the MS, the opposite to Fig. 1(b), the
same estimation and interpolation process are applied, since
the signal received from the SCPS is saved in a buffer until
the signal from the MCPS has arrived.
Fig. 4 shows how channel time-selectivity and the outdated
interference response affect the MSE performance. In the
figure, the numerical analysis (solid lines) are compared with
the simulation results (markers) for given SIR, SNR, and fd Ts .
The figure shows that the numerical results are approximately
the same as the MSE from the simulation. Though there is a
gap between simulation results and numerical analysis for fast
 LEE et al.: CHANNEL ESTIMATION APPROACH WITH VARIABLE PILOT DENSITY TO MITIGATE INTERFERENCE 2701

−5
fading environments, the value of the mismatch lies within −6
the general estimator for F
E−UTB
[time]

1dB. Therefore, the simulation results of the estimators can −7

the general estimator for FE−UTB [freq]

be upper-bounded by MSE analysis for extremely fast fading −8

the general estimator for F
U−UTB

the average MSE of the entire frame [dB]

the proposed estimator with mitigation for FU−UTB
scenarios. −9
compact pilot arrangement
The figure clearly shows that the MSE of the estimator for −10
& interference reduction
FE−UTB [freq] is best when the MS is stationary, since much −11 at high mobility
−12
of the ACI is eliminated by allocating many pilot subcarriers
−13
in the frequency domain. However, the MSE for the FE−UTB −14 interference mitigation gain
[freq] worsens rapidly as the MS speed increases. The MSE −15 at low mobility
of the estimator for FE−UTB [freq] is even worse than that −16
of the estimator without IC on FU−UTB once the normalized −17

Doppler frequency exceeds 0.035, i.e., fd Ts ≥ 0.035. This −18

interpolation error
at extremly high mobility
is because the interpolation error due to time-selectivity over- −19

whelms the interference reduction gain obtained from having −20

0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08
many pilot subcarriers in a symbol. Since the pilot distance 0 [km/h] 100 [km/h] 200 [km/h] 300 [km/h]

of FU−UTB is lower than that of FE−UTB [freq], FU−UTB is the normalized Doppler frequency [f T ] / the MS speed [km/h]
d s

more robust to the time-selectivity of the channel.

Fig. 4. Average MSE vs normalized Doppler frequency fd Ts for the
For the estimator used for the FE−UTB [time] structure, a conventional and proposed frame structures. SIR = 10dB, SNR = 30dB. The
check is made to ensure the MSE is irrelevant to the time- normalized Doppler frequency fd Ts = 2.45v · 10−4 where v[km/h] is the
speed of the MS. Solid lines indicate numerical analysis and markers denote
selectivity of the channel. Instead of reducing the ACI using simulation results.
frequent pilots in the frequency domain, this structure places
the pilots for every OFDM symbol in such a way that the
estimator will be robust to the time-selectivity of the channel. as follows:
Therefore, the MSE is maintained at the same value, even 1
, if R > 1. (25) 2rH [Qmax ] − 1 >
though the MSE performance is worse than that for other η
structures at low mobility. Since the correlation function can be approximated to
Now let us turn our attention to the proposed estimator rH [Q]  1 − 14 (2πQf 2 1  4
d Ts ) + 64 (2πQfd Ts ) by Taylor series
using interference mitigation on FU−UTB . For MSs with low expansion, Qmax can be determined as follows:
⎢  ⎥
mobility, the proposed estimator easily achieves almost the ⎢    ⎥
⎢ 1  ⎥
same MSE as the general estimator on FE−UTB [freq]. This
Qmax = ⎣
⎢ 2 − 2 1 + 1 ⎥ . (26)
⎦
is because the R − 1 pieces of increased ACI in the SCPS are π f
d Ts
η
accurately eliminated by the IC process. Although the outdated
interference, ν (i) [n; 0], ∀i ∈ [1, R), could be generated by the Therefore, for any Q ≤ Qmax , the interference suppression
time-selectivity of the channel and interference, as shown in gain overwhelms the outdated interference error for the pro-
(15), the MSE performance remains steady even for moderate posed estimator with given normalized Doppler frequency
mobility. This is because the interference suppression from f
d Ts .
the IC overwhelms the interference variation arising from the 2) When the size of the UTB is fixed: On the other
time-selectivity. Even for MSs with high mobility, the MSE of hand, the IC gain becomes smaller as the speed of the MS
the proposed estimator with IC outperforms that of the general increases if the size of the UTB is fixed at Q̃ for the U-
estimator on FE−UTB [freq], since the distance between two UTB structure. Similarly, the maximum normalized Doppler
pilot symbols on FU−UTB is smaller compared to the distance frequency fdmax Ts that can tolerate the time-varying errors
on FE−UTB [freq] as mentioned above. from the IC can also be derived as
  
As fd Ts increases, the performance gap achieved with IC   ! √
becomes smaller for the FU−UTB structure. This is because 1   1 2− 2
fdmax Ts ≤ 2− 2 1+ < , (27)
the interference mitigation no longer works for the high- π Q̃ η π Q̃
mobility environment. In fact, the IC process of the proposed
for a given UTB size Q̃. As shown in (27), the bound is broad-
estimator could actually make the performance worse if the
ened as η increases. This means that the interference mitiga-
channel is extremely time-selective up to twice the MSE of the
tion technique operates safely at high η, i.e., an interference-
estimator without IC on FU−UTB . Therefore, what is needed
limited environment. Now let us verify that the condition (27)
is to calculate the bound of Q or fd Ts so that the IC can
is valuable. In Fig. 4, the MSE of the proposed estimator with
perform safely for the FU−UTB structure. The bound of Q or
IC on FU−UTB intersects with that of the estimator without IC
fd Ts for a given condition is derived in the following.
on FU−UTB at approximately fd Ts = 0.06. On the other hand,
1) When the speed of the MS is fixed: For a fixed f d Ts , the maximum fdmax Ts for this environment is also calculated
the increased gain from IC becomes smaller as Q increases. as 0.0609 by (27) for Q̃ = 4. Therefore, the maximum Doppler
Therefore, what is needed is to find the maximum Qmax frequency can be predicted exactly with the knowledge of the
satisfying the condition εU-UTB (Qmax ) ≥ εU-UTB,IC (Qmax ). By pilot distance, and thus a speed limit can be determined below
simplifying the inequality equation, the constraint is derived which the IC process works properly.

Authorized licensed use limited to: VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY. Downloaded on August 4, 2009 at 10:33 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 2702
−4
−8
average MSE of the entire frame [dB]
−12
−16
−20
−24
−28
−32 fdTs= 0.01
−36
0 5 10
received SIR [dB]
Fig. 5. Average MSE vs received SIR, ΓSIR , for the general time-domain
estimator and the proposed estimator using IC with fd Ts = 0.01 and 0.03,
approximately 40 km/h and 120 km/h, respectively, SNR = 30dB.
Fig. 5 depicts the numerical MSE analysis versus the
average received SIR of the MS when the normalized Doppler
frequency and SNR are fixed, with SNR = 30dB, and fd Ts =
0.01 and 0.03. Note that the MSE of FE−UTB [time] is
irrelevant to the normalized Doppler frequency since there
is no interpolation error in the time domain. For the case
with fd Ts = 0.01, we can see that the MSE of the proposed
estimator on FU−UTB is almost the same as that of the general
estimator on FE−UTB [freq]. This confirms the fact that the
proposed estimator using the mitigation method is on the same
performance level as the estimator on FE−UTB [freq] at low
mobility because it is able to exploit the IC process. The ACI
can be accurately eliminated at low mobility via precise ACI
estimation.
Next, let us take a look at fd Ts = 0.03. Initially, we see
that the MSE of the estimator for FE−UTB [freq] is lower than
that of the proposed estimator at low SIRs. This is because
the proposed estimator is affected by the outdated ACI. In
fact, the estimated ACI is no longer accurate for rapidly time-
varying environments. The MSE of the estimator for FE−UTB
structure has a floor at high SIR. The MSE of the proposed
estimator, on the other hand, performs better than this. This is
because the channel estimate is more sensitive to interpolation
error than interference at high SIRs for time-varying channels
[16]. Since the mismatch resulting from the time-selectivity of
the channel far outweighs the interference from the adjacent
BSs, the MSE of the proposed estimator outperforms that of
the general estimators at high SIR.
We simulated the symbol error rate (SER) performance for
these estimators as well. Our results showed that both the MSE
and SER show similar trends for the received SIR.
B. Efficiency of the estimator for required MSE performance
Along with CIR estimation performance, another important
factor for the estimator is the pilot efficiency. To compare the
efficiency of the estimator, let us examine the pilot overhead
Authorized licensed use limited to: VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY. Downloaded on August 4, 2009 at 10:33 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS, VOL. 7, NO. 7, JULY 2008
general estimator for F
E−UTB
[time] for each UTB structure with respect to the estimator when
general estimator for F
E−UTB
[freq]
the UTB block size is fixed. First, let us denote the required
general estimator for F
U−UTB
proposed estimator with mitigation for FU−UTB MSE as εreq . If εreq satisfies the condition ε̄(Q) ≤ εreq , where
ε̄(Q) is the total average MSE of the UTB structure with
Q+1 symbols, then the minimum pilot overhead of each UTB
structure needed to satisfy the requirement can be obtained.
We define the pilot overhead as the ratio of the pilot subcarriers
fdTs= 0.03
to the total subcarriers in one UTB. The overhead of each
structure is then expressed as βE-UTB (Q) = 2R/(Q+1)·NS /N
and βU-UTB (Q) = (R + 1)/(Q + 1) · NS /N where βE-UTB (Q)
and βU-UTB (Q) are the overhead of the E-UTB and U-UTB,
respectively. As the size Q increases, the pilot overhead
decreases. At the same time, however, the MSE performance
is worsening. Therefore, the maximum Qreq that both satisfies
the MSE requirement and minimizes the pilot overhead is
Qreq = max{Q|ε̄(Q) ≤ εreq }. (28)
15 20 25 30 Q
Now let us assume that Qreq,E and Qreq,U are the maximum
block sizes that satisfy the MSE requirement for the general
estimator on FE−UTB [freq] and the proposed estimator on
FU−UTB , respectively. For the same block size, the MSE
of the proposed estimator is worse than that of the general
estimator for FE−UTB [freq] (as expressed in (24)), since there
are additional noise and interference terms in the proposed
estimator. Therefore, the proposed estimator needs to have a
smaller block size than the general estimator in order to satisfy
the required MSE, i.e., Qreq,U ≤ Qreq,E .
Fig. 6 describes the MSE performance of the estimators
for various normalized Doppler frequencies with respect to
the UTB size to determine Qreq,E and Qreq,U when εreq =
2 × 10−2 , SIR = 10dB and SNR = 30dB. The FE−UTB [time]
and FU−UTB without IC structures cannot support this εreq ,
since the number of pilot subcarriers in the frequency domain
is inadequate to reduce the ACI to εreq . Therefore, the MSEs
and the overheads of these two structures are not shown in
the figures. As mentioned above, Qreq is chosen as the largest
integer value below the required MSE: for example, Qreq,E = 7
and Qreq,U = 5 at fd Ts = 0.03 in the figure.
In Fig. 6, the MSEs of two estimators converge to a similar
value as the UTB size increases. This is because the MSEs of
both estimators are increasingly dominated by interpolation
errors as the UTB size grows larger (γQ term in (20)-
(23)). The interference and noise terms no longer contribute
significantly to the MSE value. Hence, as the required MSE
increases, Qreq,E and Qreq,U have similar values. Let us define
the pilot overhead ratio between two estimators to satisfy the
required MSE as
βU-UTB (Qreq,U ) R + 1 Qreq,E + 1
κreq = = · . (29)
βE-UTB (Qreq,E ) 2R Qreq,U + 1
When the ratio is κreq ≤ 1, it means that the proposed
estimator is better in pilot efficiency term. Then, κreq can
be smaller as the required MSE increases, since the differ-
ence between Qreq,E and Qreq,U is smaller. Consequently, the
proposed estimator is more efficient for large required MSE
values.
Now, let us confirm the pilot overhead of the estimator for
various normalized Doppler frequencies. Fig. 7 shows the pilot
overhead of two estimators with respect to the normalized
 LEE et al.: CHANNEL ESTIMATION APPROACH WITH VARIABLE PILOT DENSITY TO MITIGATE INTERFERENCE
0
10
general estimator for FE−UTB[freq]
proposed estimator with mitigation for FU−UTB
fdTs= 0.06
required MSE εreq
average MSE
−1
10
Q 0.04
Qreq,U
−2
10
2 3 4 5 6 7
UTB size [symbol]
Fig. 6. Average MSE vs UTB size to obtain the maximum required size
Qreq for the general and proposed estimators. εreq = 2 × 10−2 , SIR = 10dB,
SNR = 30dB.
Doppler frequency when εreq = 2 × 10−2 , SIR = 10dB and
SNR = 30dB. Since the time-selectivity of the channel grows
as the normalized Doppler frequency increases, the distance
between the pilot symbols Qreq should be narrower to maintain
the required performance. Hence, the pilot overhead should
be increased when fd Ts is on the increase. Compared to
the conventional estimator, the proposed one has lower pilot
overhead, satisfying the same level of the required MSE. In
addition, this pilot efficiency gain of the proposed estimator
can be increased when the SIR is increased or the required
MSE value is bigger.
VI. C ONCLUSION
We proposed a channel estimation method with an inter-
ference mitigation technique in time-selective cellular OFDM
systems combined with a new block structure. The proposed
method is able to mitigate interference by forming an unequal
pilot density structure. The proposed estimator exploits two
kinds of pilot symbols, MCPS and SCPS, to estimate the
channel and mitigate interference at the same time. By making
the pilot density of the symbols non-uniform, the interference
information on higher density pilot symbols can be utilized
for lower density pilots. Therefore, the estimation performance
can be maintained the same for lower density pilot symbols
in slow fading channels while reducing the pilot overhead.
Consequently, the proposed channel estimator is useful for
interference-limited systems, since many pilots should be used
to overcome the interference in cellular systems.
In addition, the structure can be made robust to time-
selective channels by adjusting the distance between the pilot
symbols, so that the proposed estimator outperforms the
conventional one over fast fading channels. As a result, the
unequal pilot density structure with interference mitigation
technique is able to take advantage of both interference
reduction and robustness for time-selectivity under cellular
systems where variable pilot density symbols are available.
Authorized licensed use limited to: VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY. Downloaded on August 4, 2009 at 10:33 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
2703
0.14
proposed estimator applying IC on F
U-UTB
U-UTB
0.12
general estimator on F
E-UTB
E-UTB [freq]
Overall Pilot Overhead
0.1
0.08
fdTs= 0.03
0.06
req,E
0.02
0
0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07
normalized Doppler frequency [fdTs]
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Fig. 7. Pilot overhead of the general and proposed estimators when the
required MSE is εreq = 2 × 10−2 . SIR = 10dB, SNR = 30dB. The estimator
for FE−UTB [time] structure cannot support the required MSE.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors wish to thank Michael Collins for his assistance
in revising the English in this article.
R EFERENCES
[1] Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; Physical Layer
Aspects for Evolved UTRA (Release 7), 3GPP Std. TR25.814 V7.0.0,
2006.
[2] Air Interface for Fixed and Mobile Broadband Wireless Access Systems
Amendment 2, IEEE Std. 802.16e, 2006.
[3] J. Smee, J. R. Walton, and D. P. Malladi, “Pilot transmission schemes for
wireless multi-carrier communication systems,” U.S. Patent Application
2004/0 131 007, July 8, 2004.
[4] C. G. Gerlach, “Method for OFDM data transmission in a single-
frequency multi-cell mobile network with channel estimation by means
of pilot subgrid, a base transceiver station, a base station controller, a
mobile terminal and a mobile network therefor,” U.S. Patent Application
2006/0 198 294, Sept. 7, 2006.
[5] T. Abe, H. Suda, S. Tomisato, H. Fujii, and T. Yamada, “OFDM signal
frame generator with adaptive pilot and data arrangement,” European
Patent Application 1 489 807, Dec. 22, 2004.
[6] K. Kwak, S. Lee, J. Kim, and D. Hong, “A new DFT-based channel
estimation approach for OFDM with virtual subcarriers by leakage
estimation,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., to be published.
[7] M. Minn and V. K. Bharagava, “An investigation into time-domain
approach for OFDM channel estimation,” IEEE Trans. Broadcast.,
vol. 46, pp. 240–248, Dec. 2000.
[8] M. Morelli and U. Mengali, “A comparison of pilot-aided channel
estimation methods for OFDM systems,” IEEE Trans. Signal Processing,
vol. 44, pp. 217–225, Feb. 1998.
[9] A. V. Oppeneim and R. W. Schafer, Discrete-Time Signal Processing,
2nd ed. Prentice Hall, 1998, pp. 570–588.
[10] J. G. Proakis, Digital Communications, 4th ed. New York: McGraw-
Hill, 2001, pp. 800–816.
[11] Y. Li, L. J. Ciminim, Jr., and N. R. Sollenberger, “Robust channel
estimation for OFDM systems with rapid dispersive fading channels,”
IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 46, pp. 902–915, July 1998.
[12] W. C. Jakes, Jr., Micro Wave Mobile Communications. New York: John
Wiley & Sons, 1974.
[13] A. F. Molisch, H. Dai, and H. V. Poor, “Downlink capacity of
interference-limited MIMO systems with joint detection,” IEEE Trans.
Wireless Commun., vol. 3, pp. 442–453, Mar. 2004.
[14] J. Zander and S.-L. Kim, Radio Resource Management for Wireless
Networks. Norwood, MA: Artech House, 2001, pp. 11–50.
[15] J. Kim, J. Park, and D. Hong, “Performance analysis of channel
estimation in OFDM systems,” IEEE Signal Processing Lett., vol. 12,
pp. 60–62, Jan. 2005.
 2704
[16] M. J. Garcia, J. M. P.-Borrallo, and S. Zazo, “DFT-based channel
estimation in 2D-pilot-symbol-aided OFDM wireless systems,” in Proc.
IEEE VTC 2001-Spring, Rhodes, Greece, May.
Sungeun Lee (S’05) received the B.S. degrees in
electrical and electronic engineering and in com-
puter science and industrial system engineering from
Yonsei University, Seoul, Korea, in 2002, and his
M.S. degree in electrical and electronic engineering
from Yonsei University, in 2004. He has been pur-
suing his Ph.D. degree at the same university. His
research interests lie in interference-limited wireless
systems and signal processing techniques for multi-
carrier communication systems. He is also interested
in multi-hop relay and multiple antenna systems.
Kyungchul Kwak (S’05) received the B.S., and
M.S. degrees in electrical & electronic engineering
at Yonsei University, Seoul, Korea in 2003, and
2005, respectively. He has been pursuing his Ph.D.
degree at the same university. His primary interests
are in OFDM systems, MIMO processing, multi-hop
relay systems.
Authorized licensed use limited to: VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY. Downloaded on August 4, 2009 at 10:33 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS, VOL. 7, NO. 7, JULY 2008
Jihyung Kim (S’04) received the B.S., M.S., and
Ph.D. degrees in electrical & electronic engineering
at Yonsei University, Seoul, Korea in 2000, 2002,
and 2007, respectively. Since 2007, he has currently
been a senior engineer in ETRI, Korea. His primary
interests are focused on signal processing and mo-
bile communications.
Daesik Hong (SM’06) received the B.S. and M.S.
degrees in electronics engineering from Yonsei
University, Seoul, Korea, in 1983 and 1985, re-
spectively, and the Ph.D. degree from the School
of Electrical Engineering, Purdue University, West
Lafayette, IN, in 1990. Since 1991, he has been
a Professor with the Department of Electrical and
Electronic Engineering at Yonsei University. He
has been serving as chair of the Center for Elec-
tronic and Informative Telecommunication of Yonsei
University since March 2002, and also serving as
chair of Samsung-Yonsei Research Center for Mobile Intelligent Terminal.
Currently, he is a division editor of the Journal of Communications and
Networks (JCN) and an editor of the IEEE Transactions on Wireless Com-
munication. His current research activities are in 4G wireless-communication
systems, orthogonal frequency-division-multiplexing and multicarrier systems,
and cross-layer techniques. More information about his research is available
online: http://mirinae.yonsei.ac.kr.