On MMSE Methods for Blind Identification of

OFDM-Based SIMO Systems

Faisal O. Alayyan 1, Raed M. Shubair 2, Yee Hong Leung 3, Abdelhak M. Zoubir 4, and Omar Alketbi 5
1,2,5Khalifa University of Science, Technology and Research (kustar)
Sharjah P.O. Box 573 , United Arab Emirates, Email: alayyan.rshubair@kustar.ac.ae.alketbi46@hotmail.com
3 Curtin University of Technology
Perth WA 6845, Australia, Email: Y.Leung@exchange.curtin.edu.au
4Signal Processing Group (SPG), TU Darmstadt
Merckstrasse 25, 64283 Darmstadt, Germany, Email: zoubir@ieee. org
Abstract- This paper considers the problem of channel iden-
tification in OFDM-based SIMO systems. In this contribution,
we focus on minimum mean square error (MMSE) algorithm,
which exploits the system structure and offers superior estimation
performance. Simulation results are provided to illustrate this
claim and to assess the performance of the proposed algorithms.
Index Terms: OFDM, channel identification, equalization, GI,
CP, MMSE, LSF, PRo
I. INTRODUCTION
Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM) is a multi-
carrier digital modulation technique that facilitates the transmission
of high data rates with a limited bandwidth [11]. Due to increase
in the normalized delay spread, multi path fading becomes a major
concern as systems with high data rate are more liable to intersymbol
interference (lSI). Classically, lSI is eliminated by employing a
cyclically extended time domain guard interval (01). Thus, each
OFDM symbol is preceded by a periodic extension of the symbol
itself. This 01 is also known as cyclic prefix (CP) and the system CP-
OFDM [11]. Recently, zero-padding OFDM (ZP-OFDM), which pre-
pends each OFDM symbol with zeros rather than replicating the last
few samples, has been proposed [11]. ZP-OFDM not only has all the
advantages of the CP-OFDM, but also guarantees symbol recovery
and ensures finite impulse response (FIR) equalization. However,
the implementation of a ZP-OFDM system involves transmitter
modifications and complicates the equalizer.
Adaptive channel equalization techniques have been widely used
in communication systems because of their convenience in real-time
applications. More recently, a blind adaptive equalization algorithm
based on MMSE estimation, which offers a number of attractive
properties such as robustness to channel over-estimation errors and
low computational complexity, has been introduced [7], [9]. An
extension of the MMSE equalizer for fast varying channels was
developed in [8]. Although these proposed algorithms have high
identification efficiency, they are computationally very intensive and
difficult to implement in real time, especially for large sensor array
systems. Therefore, these algorithms are not compatible with future
4G wireless communication systems.
In Section II, the OFDM-based SIMO system is reformulated. In
Section III, we present subspace-MMSE (SS-MMSE) blind channel
identification and equalization method, which exploits the system
structure and offers superior estimation performance than [7]. It is
shown in [7], that the blind channel identification of the MMSE filter
results in a performance loss compared to semi-blind approaches.
To alleviate this drawback and control non-zero equalization delay,
a two-step technique was introduced [7], [8]. However, the two-
step technique is not practical for general SIMO channel estimation.
For CP-OFDM systems, the estimation methods [11] rely on certain
properties of Circulant matrices. Important aspects of the proposed
978-1-4244-3474-9/09/$25.00 2009 IEEE
SS-MMSE algorithm include: it requires only a one-step technique
to reconstruct the channel vectors. Although this algorithm is prelim-
inary and suboptimal in retrospect, it reformulates a traditional chan-
nel identification and equalization problem into a block-parameter
estimation framework and eliminates the issue of information loss
as reported [7], [8], due to the properties of Sylvester matrices [2].
More importantly, it opens up a new direction and leads to the
development of a class of data-efficient and fast converging blind
equalization techniques, namely the MMSE algorithm, as discussed
in Section III. In previous report works [4], MMSE equalization
algorithms were developed. Section IV deals with the linear adaptive
implementation of the proposed detectors in a time varying environ-
ment. In Section V, we propose an alternative detection criterion by
using the property restoral (PR). The method partially copes with the
redundancy created by the CP to perform blind channel identification
by using a least square fitting (LSF) approach. The resulting LSF-
MMSE cost function demonstrates robustness to variation of the
frequency selective fading. In Section VI, the performance gain of
zero-delay and nonzero-delay are discussed. The effectiveness of the
proposed algorithms is demonstrated in Section VII through computer
simulations.
II. SYSTEM MODEL
Consider a baseband discrete-time CP-OFDM system, where
the transmitted symbols are parsed into blocks of size N: Sk =
[sdO) , sdl) , ... , sdN - 1)f and k = 0,1,2 ... , K - 1. The
elements of Sk are considered to be independent and identically
distributed (i.i.d). We regard these elements to be in the frequency
domain. The symbol block Sk is then modulated and converted into
time domain using the IFFT matrix F ~ , where FN has entires
fn,d = }exp (i2';.;nd) and d, n = 0, ... , N - 1. The data vector
Uk = F NSk = [Uk (0) ,Uk (1) , ... , Uk (N - 1)]T is then appneded
with a CP 1 of length L, resulting in a size M = N + L signal
vector: iiCp,k = Tcpuk. where Tcp is a concatenation of the last L
rows of an N x N identity matrix IN (that we denote as Icp) and
the identity matrix itself IN, i.e., Tcp = [Ilp, I ~ r. The channel
response is denoted by h(r) (l) where l = 0,1, ... , L, r = 1,2, ... , q
and q is the number of receiving antennas. To avoid lSI, as indicated
previously, the CP length L is selected to be equal to or greater than
the largest channel order. Next we introduce some notations and some
basic results needed later. The received k-th block at r-th output for
n = 0,1, ... , M - 1, is given by
L
X ~ ~ , k (n) = L h(r) (l) UCp,k (n -l) + V ~ ~ , k (n) (1)
1=0
lThe CP makes the OFDM appear periodic over the time span of interest.
where UCp,k (n -l) and the AWON, V 6 ~ , k (n), is assumed to be
mutually uncorrelated and stationary. Definmg the following notations
XCp,k (n)
VCp,k (n)
h (l)
[
(1) () (2) ( ) (q) ( )] T
Xcp,k n , XCp,k n , ... , XCp,k n
[
(1) () (2) ( ) (q) ( )] T
Vcp,k n 'VCp,k n , ... , VCp,k n
[h(l) (l) ,h(2) (l) , ... , h(q) (l) r
we can rewrite the input-output relation (1) in vector matrix as
L
(2)
XCp,k (n) = L h (l) UCp,k (n -l) + VCp,k (n) . (3)
l=O
Let Ho be the qM x N block-lower triangular Toeplitz matrix
with first column [hT (0) , ... ,h
T
(L) ,OT, . .. ,OT] T and HI be the
qM x N block-upper triangular Toeplitz matrix with first block-row
[0, ... ,0, h (L) , ... ,h (1)]. Based on the aforementioned results and
the fact that h(l) = 0, Vl ~ [0, LJ, (3) can be written in the block
form as [11]
XCp,k
where
XCp,k
lSI
~
Hoiicp,k + H1iicp,k-l +VCp,k
H H
HoTcpFNsk + H1TCpFNSk-l +VCp,k
'--v-"
lSI
[XlP'k (0) ,Xlp,k (1), ... ,Xlp,k (M -1)r
(4)
VCp,k
[
T T T ]T
VCp,k (0) ,VCp,k (1) , ... , VCp,k (M - 1) . (5)
To obtain an lSI-free data block, we consider a
truncated version of XCp,k. This is done by discarding
[Xlp,k (0) ,Xlp,k (1) , ... ,Xlp,k (L - 1) r with the receive-matrix:
Rcp = [OqNxqL,IqN].
The resulting received vector can be written as
YCp,k
where
RCpXCp,k
H
HcpF NSk + nCp,k
[
T T T ]T
YCp,k YCp,k (0) 'YCp,k (1) , ... , YCp,k (N - 1)
(6)
(7)
[
T T T ]T
nCp,k nCp,k (0), nCp,k (1) , ... , nCp,k (N - 1) . (8)
Since RcpHl Tcp = 0, lSI inducing matrix HI has been eliminated
completely. Note that Hcp = RcpHo Tcp is a block-Circulant channel
matrix, with first block-row [h (0),0, ... ,0, h (L), ... , h (1)] and
first column [hT (0), ... ,h
T
(L), ... ,0Tr.
III. MMSE-BASED EQUALIZER
Consider a 7-delay MMSE equalizer (7 E {O, 1,2, ... , N - 1}).
The equalizer weight vector VT corresponding to the desired solution
is given by [7], [8], [9]
VT = arg min IIUk-T - VHYkl12 = R;;-lhT
IIvll=1
(9)
where Rn = E (Ykyf!) is the channel covariance matrix of the
received data and hT is an n x 1 vector (where n qN) given
by:
(10)
where H (:,7 + 1) denotes the (7 + 1 )-th column vector of H. Then,
we can write Rn as
(11)
Based on the concept of signal subspace used by many eigen-based
algorithms in the context of array signal processing, (9) can be written
in terms of the signal subspace S as follows
VT = SVT (12)
where vT is a N-dimensional vector. For the zero-delay MMSE
equalizer, we can write
h(O)
h (L)
o
o
(13)
Obviously, CP-OFDM (or even ZP-OFDM) is capable of recovering
v = q( L + 1) channel impulse responses for 7 = 0, ... , N - 1. This
is precisely the distinct advantage of the proposed algorithm over [7].
Therefore (13) implies that
(14)
where Rn is a sub-matrix of Rn given by its last r;, = n - v rows.
In practice, since the output data vectors are noisy, (14) is solved in
the least square sense according to:
vo = arg !llin (vf! QSS-MMSEVO) (15)
II voll=1
where
(16)
This quadratic optimization criterion allows unique estimation of
v up to a scale factor, and the estimated weight vector is thus
obtained as the eigenvector associated with the minimum eigenvalue
of QSS-MMSE' Based on (9), channel parameters corresponding to
zero-delay ho is estimated as
(17)
One of the important advantages of subspace-MMSE (SS-MMSE)
algorithm is its deterministic property. That is, the channel parameters
can be recovered perfectly in the absence of noise, using only a finite
set of data samples, without any statistical assumption over input
data. Therefore, SS-MMSE algorithm is promising for applications
where only a small amount of output data are available. A typical
disadvantage of the SS-MMSE algorithm is that they require a
computationally expensive EVD of a data covariance matrix to
extract the signal eigenvectors S. Partly due to the computational
disadvantage of the EVD-based approach, OFDM systems cannot be
compatible with 40 communication systems. However, it is possible
to merge the advantages of a MMSE-based equalizer operating in
OFDM without using signal subspace. Similarly to (14), we write
RnVo = O. (18)
Therefore, the estimated weight vector is obtained as
Vo = arg min (vf! QMMSEVO)
IIvll=1
(19)
where
(20)
The resulting algorithm (MMSE) is much more efficient in computa-
tion than the SS-MMSE algorithm and quite sensitive to the frequency
selective fading.
IV. ADAPTIVE IMPLEMENTATION
A major drawback of the SS-MMSE algorithm is its high com-
putational cost due to the EVD of a large dimensional matrix
requiring O(n
3
) flops of computations for time varying multi path
channels. Estimation of time varying multi path communications for
equalisation typically involves the use of fast adaptive algorithms
having linear complexity. In this section, we introduce a fast adaptive
implementation of the SS-MMSE algorithm. The channel covariance
matrix Rn is replaced by its recursive version
Rn(i) = (3Rn(i - 1) + Yk(i)y{: (i). (21)
at the i-th iteration, where Rn (i) is the sample covariance matrix at
the data available up to time i and (3 is the forgetting factor (0 < (3 S
1). In the literature, many subspace tracking algorithms have been
developed to compute the signal and for noise subs paces recursively,
which require O( n
2
N), O( nN
2
) and O( nN) flops of computation at
each update. In our adaptive implementation, we propose to estimate
the signal subspace by the efficient subspace tracker a YET another
subspace tracker (YAST) [5] which has a complexity of O(nN).
The choice of the YAST algorithm is motivated by its remarkable
tracking performance compared to other existing subspace tracking
algorithms of similar computational complexity such as projection
approximation subspace tracking (PAST) [12] and orthogonal PSAT
(OPAST) [1]. The second step of our algorithm consists of estimating
recursively the N-dimensional vector v as the least eigenvector of
matrix Q S ~ - M M S E or equivalently as the dominant eigenvector of
its inverse . Based on the development in [7], we introduce in what
follows a low computational complexity algorithm by exploiting the
shift-invariance property of the temporal data covariance matrices [6].
Now, using (21), we can derive
(22)
Initialization
S(O)
Z(O)
Rn(O)
Vo
t(O)
C(O)
For each time step do
IN
[o(n-n)xn I(n-n)x(n-n)
a random unitary vector
Rn(O)S(O)
(tH (O)t(O)) -1
update S( i) using YAST or OPAST algorithms.
A(i)
N(i)
D(i)
W(i)
B(i)
C(i)
vo(i)
vo(i)
t(i)
[
IIYk(i)112 -1
-1 0
{3t
H
(i - l)h (i)
[N(i) h(i) 1
1
(32 C(i - I)D(i)
(A(i) _ W
H
(i)D(i))-1
;2 C(i - 1) + W(i)B(i)WH (i)
C(i)vo(i - 1)
IIC(i)vo(i - 1)11
S( i)vo (i)
(3t(i - 1)+ Yk(i)yt: (i)
TABLE I
ADAPTIVE BLIND SS-MMSE EQUALIZATION ALGORITHM.
where Y k is a sub-vector of Y k given by its last Ii elements. Applying
the projection approximation, leads to where W(i) is the N x 2 matrix
Rn(i)S(i) ~ Rn(i)S(i - 1) (23)
which is valid if the signal subspace S( i) is slowly varying with i.
For later reference, consider
T(i) = Rn(i)S(i). (24)
Substituting (22) into (24) yields
T(i) = (3T(i - 1) + Yk(i)y{: (i). (25)
Then (16) can be replaced by the following recursion
QSS-MMSE(i) = (32QSS_MMSE(i - 1) + D(i)A -l DH (i) (26)
where D( i) is the N x 2 matrix
(27)
and A( i) is the 2 x 2 non-singular matrix
-1 ]
o .
(28)
Consider the N x N Hermitian matrix
C(i) = QSS-MMSE(i)
(29)
using the matrix (Schur) inversion [?], we obtian
C(i) = ;2 C(i - 1) + W(i)B(i)W
H
(i) (30)
2QSS-MMSE is a singular matrix when dealing with exact statistics.
W(i) = ;2 C(i - I)D(i)
and B( i) is the 2 x 2 matrix
B(i) = (A(i) _ W
H
(i)D(i)) -1.
(31)
(32)
The extraction of the dominant eigenvector of C(i) is obtained by
power iteration as [7], [8]
_. C(i)vo(i - 1)
vo(z) = IIC(i)vo(i - 1)11'
(33)
Thus the MMSE equalizer vector is expressed (up to scalar constant)
by
vo(i) = S(i)vo(i). (34)
A batch-processing implementation of the adaptive blind SS-MMSE
equalization algorithm is summarized in Table I.
V. LSF-MMSE ALGORITHM
Consider Xk = [x[(O),x[(I), ... ,x[(L-l)r to be the k-th
restored (equalizer output) OFDM symbol in the frequency domain
where xk(m) = [xk
1
)(m),xk
2
)(m), ... ,xk
Q
)(m)r. Based on the
concept of PR algorithm [3], the last L block-samples are identical
to the first L block-samples in the symbol, i.e.,
Xk(m) = xk(N + m), m = 0, ... , L - 1 (35)
However, when considering the sample averaged estimate of Rn, the estimate where
of the QSS-MMSE is almost surely non-singular matrix due to the estimation
(36) errors.
According to the previous result, defined in (35), the cost function is
expressed as follows
K-1 L-1
JLSF-MMSE(g) = L L Ilxk(m) - xk(N + m)112.
(37)
k=O m=O
Using the MMSE concept, (37) can be rewritten explicitly as
K-1 L-1
() ""' ""' II H (1) H (2)11
2
JLSF-MMSE g = L...J L...J g Xk - g Xk
(38)
k=O m=O
where = [x[(m), ... ,x[(m - d)]T represents the redundant
part of the OFDM symbols and Xk
2
) = [x[ (N + m), .. . , x[ (N +
m - d)]T represents the actual part of the block. Thus, a zero-delay
weight vector is formulated as
(39)
where Rd is a covariance matrix of the (7) with d-window length, and
J = Id x n. It is easy to verify that ho is estimated by the following
quadratic form
I 0 1 2 3
h(/) 1.5 -O.5i O.5i 1.5i
TABLE III
CHANNEL 2 IMPULSE RESPONSE.
Fig. 1. Performance comparison of CP-OFDM estimators using the MMSE, LSF-
(40) MMSE and SS-MMSE algorithms: Number of OFDM symbols vs MSE.
where
QLSF-MMSE = JTRd1 (Xk1) - Xk
2
)) (Xk1) - Xk
2
)) H Rd
1
J. (41)
The quadratic optimization criterion allows a unique estimation of
the channel up to a complex scaling factor. It is clear that in the
LSF-MMSE estimator, the channel impulse response parameter is
estimated during time period corresponding to the redundant bands
between successive OFDM symbols.
VI. EQUALIZATION DELAY
Consider the spatiotemporal vector of the signal model (7) as
N-1
Yk = L hTuk-T + nk
(42)
T=O
where hT is defined in (10) and represents a sub matrix of H
given by the column vectors of indices varying in the range
{O, 1, 2, ... , N - I}. Since
(43)
the performance gain of the nonzero-delay equalizer with (T E
{I, 2, ... , N - I}) becomes, in general, negligible once we com-
pared to the zero-delay equaliser (T = 0). This condition is not
valid for multichannel FIR systems that is proposed in [9] (see
[7], [8] for more details), where nonzero-delay equalizers can have
much improved performance compared to the zero-delay ones [10].
Unlike the proposed multichannel FIR system [9], OFDM-based
SIMO system does not necessarily need nonzero-delay equalizer.
VII. NUMERICAL EXAMPLES
I 0 1 2 3
hell 3.5+2.7i -O.75+0.5i -1.0-0.25i O.25+0.0i
TABLE II
CHANNEL I IMPULSE RESPONSE.
In this section, we illustrate the merits of our proposed algorithms.
symbols drawn from the BPSK constellation. The data plotted were
averaged over 200 independent runs. The FIR channels used in the
simulation are depicted in Tables II and III. Note that the frequency
response of channell involves no frequency nulls. In contrast, the
frequency response of channel 2 has a null at frequency bin 2. For
OFDM-based SIMO systems (one-transmit and two-receive antenna),
channels 1 and 2 are deployed, whereas channel 1 is used for
OFDM-based SISO systems (one-transmit and one-receive antenna).
To remove the effect of lSI, a CP of length equal to the channel length
was inserted. Next, we test our algorithms in different scenarios.
Simulation Example 1: Figure 1 shows the proposed performance
of the algorithms at SNR=20 dB as a function of the number of
OFDM symbols. We see that the performance of the MMSE and SS-
MMSE estimators improve with increasing the number of OFDM
symbols. Furthermore, large number of OFDM symbols is required
-OO.!--7,c" -----o",---7,c" ----c!",---;,cw .. --!".
$NR(de)
Fig_ 2. Performance comparison of CP-OFDM estimators using the MMSE, LSF-
MMSE and SS-MMSE algorithms: SNR vs MSK
The figure of merit is the achievable BER averaged over the OFDM Fig_ 3. Performance comparison of CP-OFDM estimators using the MMSE, LSF-
data frame compromising of N = 20 samples. We used the signal MMSE and SS-MMSE algorithms: SNR vs BER.
Fig. 4. Perfonnance comparison of LSF algorithms via MMSE and ZF equalizers:
SNR vs BER.
"
'.
"
;-10

-"":'..:'-h

Fig. 5. Convergence of the adaptive SS-MMSE equalization algorithm.
to obtain good channel estimates by the MMSE, and SS-MMSE
estimators, In contrast, the LSF-MMSE estimator does not need
large number of OFDM symbols and is able to identify the channel
coefficients with much smaller number of OFDM symbols. Note that
the performance of the LSF-MMSE algorithm is independent of the
number of OFDM symbols as long as the identifiability condition
is fulfilled. Additionally, as can be seen the SS-MMSE estimator
is much more robust to noise and also gives superior performance
at large numbers of OFDM symbols. Note that even allowing 1000
OFDM symbols, the MMSE estimators are unable to attain the
performance of SS-MMSE estimator that it attains with only 100
OFDM symbols.
Simulation Example 2: In this simulation study, we fixed the number
of symbols to 200 and varied the SNR from 5-50 dB. Figure 2 shows
the MSE as a function of SNR for the estimators. We observe that
the performance of the three estimators improves with increasing
SNR. In comparison with the MMSE estimator, the LSF-MMSE
estimator performs better. Furthermore, the proposed LSF-MMSE
performs well for low SNR, whereas a further increase yields a slight
improvement in comparison to the other algorithms. High SNR is
required to obtain good channel estimates by MMSE estimator, which
results in the same performance of the LSF-MMSE estimator. Among
the three estimators, the SS-MMSE estimator is much more robust
to noise and gives superior performance at high SNR.
Simulation Example 3: For the channel estimates obtained in Simu-
lation example 2, we investigate the performance of the corresponding
multi-channel equalizer. For each SNR value we took the average of
the channel estimates over all Monte Carlo runs and computed the
corresponding H. Figure 3 shows the BER as a function of the SNR
for 0-20 dB. For the purpose of comparisons, the performance of the
equaliser with perfect channel estimation is considered. Similar to the
previous example increasing SNR yields a significant improvement
in the equalizers performance. For low SNR, the system with LSF-
MMSE equalizer achieves a performance very similar to that of the
system with perfect channel estimation.
Simulation Example 4: Figure 4 shows the overall BER performance
of the proposed spatial diversity LSF based on MMSE equalizer for
a SNR range of 2-10 dB. In order to check the spatial diversity gain,
we also simulated the LSF-MMSE without diversity (i.e., SISO). In
addition, the LSF algorithm based on the ZF equalizer [3], is applied
to both SISO and SIMO systems. The following comments can be
made:
The ZF equalizers suffer from a performance penalty in all cases
compared to the MMSE equalizers.
Antenna diversity results in performance improvement. Specif-
ically, see the performance gap between the SIMO and SISO
receivers employing MMSE and ZF equalizers.
Channel 2 possesses a frequency null, but both algorithms for
the SIMO and SISO systems prove robust against this.
Simulation Example 5: We now examine the tracking performance
of the proposed SS-MMSE algorithm in a slowly time varying
environment at SNR=15 dB. Figure 5 shows the MSE performance
against the number of OFDM symbols for YAST and OPAST
algorithms. As we can see, in this experiment, YAST outperforms
OPAST.
VIII. CONCLUSION
This paper introduces blind channel identification and equalization
algorithms based on the MMSE equalizer for OFDM-based SIMO
systems. Obviously, the SS-MMSE equalizer obtains better results
than MMSE and LSF-MMSE equalizers, but we must remark the
difference in computational cost. The SS-MMSE equalizer requires
an EVD of an n x n autocorrelation matrix, thus requiring O(n
3
)
floating point operations. Based on the adaptive algorithm, linear
computational complexity is obtained, which only requires O(nN)
flops. Thes proposed algorithms estimates ito without extracting the
signal subspace. In CP-OFDM system, any column vector it.,. of the
channel matrix H contains sufficient information. Therefore, one-
step approach is satisfied and meets the requirements of the wireless
communication systems.
REFERENCES
[1] K. Abed-Meraim, A. Chkeif and Y. Hua, "Fast orthogonal PAST
algorithm," IEEE Signal Processing Letters, Vol. 7, pp. 60-62, March
2000.
[2] K. Abed-Meraim, P. Loubaton and E. Moulines, "A subspace algorithm
for certain blind identifications problems," IEEE Transactions on Signal
Processing, vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 499-511, March 1997.
[3] F. O. Alayyan, K. Abed-Meraim and A. Zoubir, "Blind equalization in
OFDM systems exploiting guard interval redundancy;' in Proceedings
of 39th Asilomar Conference on Signals. Systems and Computers, pp.
697-700, November 2005.
[4] F. O. Alayyan, K. Abed-Meraim and A. Zoubir, "Blind MMSE Channel
Identification And Equalization Algorithms for OFDM Systems," In
Proceedings of the 9th International Symposium on Signal Process-
ing and its Applications (ISSPA '07), Sharjah, United Arab Emirates
(U.A.E.), February 2007.
[5] R. Badeua, B. David and G. Richard, "YET another subspace tracker,"
in Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Acoustics.
Speech, and Signal Processing (ICASSP), vol. 4, pp. 329-331, March
2005.
[6] C. E. Davila, "Efficient, high performance, and subspace tracking for
time-domain data," IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, vol. 48,
pp. 3307-3315, 2000.
[7] I. Kacha, K. Abed-Meraim and A. Belouchrani, "A Fast adaptive blind
equalization algorithm robust to channel order over-estimation errors,"
IEEE Sensor Array and Multichannel Signal Processing Workshop, pp.
148-152, July 2004.
[8] I. Kacha, K. Abed-Meraim and A. Belouchrani, "A new blind MMSE
equalizer for MIMO systems;' IEEE 16th International Symposium on
Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications, pp. 1024-1028,
July 2005.
[9] I. Kacha, K. Abed-Meraim and A. Belouchrani, "Fast Adaptive Blind
MMSE Equalizer for Multichannel FIR Systems," EURASIP Journal
on Applied Signal Processing, vol. 2006, no. 14827, pp. 1-17, June
2006.
[10] J. Shen and Z. Ding, "Direct blind MMSE channel equalisation based
on second-order statistics," IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing,
vol. 48, pp. 1015-1022,2000.
[11] Z. Wang and G. B. Giannakis, "Wireless Multicarrier Communications,
where Fourier meets Shannon," IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, pp.
29-48, May 2000.
[12] B. Yang, "Projection Approximation Subspace Tracking;' IEEE Trans-
actions on Signal Processing, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 95-107, January 1995.