You are on page 1of 6

EE 583: Project 3

Narrowband Interference Suppression

1.1

Noise Variance

To show that,

nL nL (0) = E I(n)

L1
X

!2
wl {s(n 1 l) + I(n 1 l)}

(1)

l=0

We assume that the signal s(n) and the interference I(n) are uncorrelated. Thus their cross-correlation
is zero. We also assume that the signal and interference are wide-sense stationary with zero mean and
variance ss (0) = E[s2 (n)] = 1 and II (0) = E[I 2 (n)] respectively. Expanding the above equation we get,
#
#
"L1
"L1
X
X
wl2 {s2 (n l 1) + I 2 (n l 1)}
nL nL (0) = E[I 2 (n)] 2E
wlT {I(n)I(n l 1)T } + E
l=0

l=0

L1
X

nL nL (0) =

l=0

L1
X

l=0

L1
X

l=0

l=0

l=0
L1
X

L1
X

L1
X

wl2 ej2wI (l+1)

l=0

2
L1
L1

X
X

2
jwI (l+1)
nL nL (0) =
wl + II (0) 1
wl e

l=0
l=0

2
L1
L1

X
X

2
jwI
jwI l
nL nL (0) =
wl + II (0) 1 e
wl e

l=0

l=0

(2)
where, we have used the fact that the autocorrelation function has a peak at zero and decreases exponentially on either side. Thus, we see that E[I(n)I(n l 1)] = II (l + 1) = II (0)ejwI (l+1) .

1.2

The broadband gain is given by,

Glpef =
1
II (0)

PL1
l=0

1

2
P

jwI l
wl2 + 1 ejwI L1
w
e
l
l=0

The parameters are L = 50, input SN R=-20 dB. Using these parameters we find that,
Glpef,theoretical 14dB
1

(3)

1.3

All zero weight initialization

Figure 1 shows the plot for the broadband gain Glpef and the corresponding mean square error versus the
number of samples for different seed values. We see that the Glpef is lower than the theoretical value. This
is due to the low SNR of -20 dB.
All zero weight initialization

10

9
6

(dB)

lpef

seed value = 0.5208, = 2.2245 radians

5
4
3

4
seed value = 0.8825, = 1.2611 radians
3

2
1
1
0

0.5

1.5
2
Number of samples

2.5

0.5

x 10

1.5
2
Number of samples

(a)

2.5

3
4

x 10

(b)
1

10

10

10

10
Mean square error

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10
10

seed value = 0.8825, = 1.2611 radians

0.5

1.5
2
Number of samples

2.5

10

3
4

x 10

0.5

1.5
2
Number of samples

(c)

(d)

2.5

3
4

x 10

1.4

All pass weight initialization

Figure 2 shows the plot for the broadband gain Glpef and the corresponding mean square error versus the
number of samples for different seed values. In comparison to the all zero weight initialization we see that
gain is significantly lower. This is due to the low SNR of -20 dB.
All pass weight initialization

10

10

Broadband gain Glpef (dB)

5
seed value = 0.4716, = 1.4643 radians

10

15

5
seed value = 0.1532, = 0.1994 radians
10

15

20

25

0.5

1.5
2
Number of samples

2.5

20

0.5

x 10

1.5
2
Number of samples

(a)

2.5

3
4

x 10

(b)

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

10

15

10

10

10

15

10

seed value = 0.1532, = 0.1994 radians

20

10

20

10

25

10

25

10

30

10

30

10

35

0.5

1.5
2
Number of samples

2.5

10

3
4

x 10

0.5

1.5
2
Number of samples

(c)

2.5

3
4

x 10

(d)

Figure 2: Broadband gain and mean square error

1.5

Analysis

It can be seen from the plots that the convergence of the all zero weight initialization is faster than that of
the all pass initialization. In addition, the former also attains a higher gain and therefore is able to nullify
the interference better.

2.1

2.1.1

The steady state output SINR is given by,



|W (N )H U (0 )|2
SIN R = 10 log10
A2I |W (N )H U (I = 0)|2 + (0.1)2 |W (N )|2

(4)

In the above expression, we can see that U0 and UI represent the steering vectors of the desired and
interference signal respectively. When the adapted weight vector W is multiplied by both of these steering
vectors we get,
W (N )H U0 = 1
W (N )H UI = 0
Thus cancelling out the interference. The ideal SINR given that the interference is cancelled out, by the
minimum variance beamformer weight vector W is given by,
10 log10 (L/(0.1)2 )
The value of L is assumed to be 30 and thus the steady state SINR is 34.771 dB, this is the maximum SINR
that can be achieved. Figure 3a and Figure 3b illustrate the convergence of the SINR over the sample size
for different amplitudes (AI ) and different angles of the desired (0 ), interfering (i ) signals. We notice
that for larger differences between 0 and i , the convergence to 34.771 dB is faster, thus eliminating the
interference more accurately. It becomes difficult when both 0 and i are close to each other.
AI=10

A =1
I

40

35

30

30

25

SINR (dB)

SINR (dB)

20
20

15

10

0=0, i=1

=5, =10

10

0=0, i=1

=3, =7
0
0

0=3, i=7

0=5, i=10

10

=10, =30
0

0.5

1.5
2
2.5
Number of samples

0=10, i=30

3.5

20

4
4

x 10

(a) SINR versus number of samples for Ai = 1

0.5

1.5
2
2.5
Number of samples

3.5

4
4

x 10

Figure 3: Convergence of SINR with the number of samples

The corresponding array gains for the different values of (0 ) and (i ) are as shown in Figure 4.

0=0

0=3

AI=1
AI=10

AI=1
AI=10

5
10

10

Gain (dB)

Gain (dB)

15
20

30

20
25
30

40
35

i=1

=7
i

40

50

45
60
40

30

20

10
0
10
Angle (degrees)

20

30

50
40

40

30

20

(a)

20

30

40

(b)

=5

10
0
10
Angle (degrees)

AI=1

AI=1

=10
0

AI=10

AI=10

10

10

20
20

Gain (dB)

Gain (dB)

30
30

40

50

i=10
50

60

60

70
40

40

i=30

70

30

20

10
0
10
Angle (degrees)

20

30

80
40

40

30

(c)

20

10
0
10
Angle (degrees)

20

30

40

(d)

2.1.2

Sample Mean Squared Error (mse)

The table below lists the values of the mse for different combinations of 0 , i and AI .
(0 , i )
(0,1)
(3,7)
(5,10)
(10,30)

AI =1
68.2826
32.5360
38.3304
28.7183

AI =10
71.8815
29.4528
29.8999
21.1764

We can infer from the table that, as the distance (0 i ) between the desired user and interferer
increases, the mean square error decreases because the weight vector W is able to suppress the interference
better.
2.1.3

Bit Error Rate (BER)

Ideally, the BER is zero for a low noise variance because the W is able to completely nullify the interference.
However, for high values of noise variance, we see the BER plots for the adaptive constraint beamformer
in Figure 5. We can deduce from the plots that the BER increases with the increasing strength of the
interferer i.e., AI . Thus a strong interferer will reduce the error performance of the system.

AI=1

A =10
I

10

10

Noise SD = = 3.535

Noise SD = = 3.535
1

10

10

10

BER

BER

10

10

10

=0, =1
0

=3, =7
0

0=3, i=7

0=5,i=10
4

10

10

10

0=10,i=30
5

0=0, i=1
0=5, i=10
0=10, i=30

0
Signa to Noise ratio (SNR) dB

10

10

0
SNR (dB)

10

(a) Error performance of the adaptive constraint linear (b) Error performance of the adaptive constraint linear
beamformer with AI = 1
beamformer AI = 10

2.2
2.2.1

Principle Component Analysis (PCA)

Comparison between PCA and Minimum Variance Beamforming

In this section, we compare the SINR obtained from PCA and that from minimum variance beamforming
(MVB). The values are tabulated in the following table,

(0 , i )
(0,1)
(0,15)

PCA
AI = 1
AI = 10
SINR (dB) SINR (dB)
-0.036
20.4538
-0.003
34.4678

MVB
AI = 1
AI = 10
SINR (dB) SINR (dB)
27.9105
27.9075
29.4528
34.7670

The PCA assumes no prior information about the transmitted signal like the angle of arrival and uses
only the information from signals received. However, the PCA assumes that the power of interference
signal is strong and that the power of the desired signal is relatively very weak. It relies on this difference
between the relative strengths of the received signals and after performing an eigenvalue decomposition
assigns the one with the lowest eigenvalue to that of the desired signal. Then, uses the corresponding
orthogonal eigenvector to cancel out the interference.
It is clear that in the case of the PCA, AI has a significant impact on the performance. When the
strength of the desired signal and the interferer are similar, the PCA does not perform well. This can
be understood by looking at the eigenvalues obtained. For example, the case for when AI = 1 and
i = 15, eigenvalues via the decomposition are found to be 31.1 and 28.8. Hence, the eigenvectors are
not completely orthogonal resulting in a large amount of residual interference and ergo the performance
degradation. Finally, for large values of AI , the PCA performs much better and is comparable to the
performance of the MVB.