Model Selection-Based Blind Channel Estimation
Method for Parsimonious MIMO-COFDM Systems
Amar A. EL-Sallam
School of Electrical, Electronic and Computer Engineering
The University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway Crawley,
WA 6009, Australia
elsallam@ee.uwa.edu.au
Abstract—The paper considers a blind channel estimation
method combined with a model selection algorithm for the
classification and estimation of significant channel parameters in
Coded Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (COFDM)
systems with multiple receive antennas. Unlike conventional
channel estimation methods, where channel parameters are
estimated based on a known or an estimated length, we propose a
blind-based method which will jointly classify and estimate only
significant channel parameters and the channel length, i.e., par-
simonious channel estimates. Firstly, by using only the received
signal and users’ spreading codes, a data model for the channel
response is presented. Then, a blind channel estimation method
based on eigenvalue value decomposition (EVD), incorporated
with a hierarchical minimum description length (MDL) model
selection method is used to estimate only the identified significant
channel parameters. Simulation results show that, the proposed
method is capable of identifying significant channel parameters
with high probabilities and at low SNRs. In addition, the system
performance based on the identified parameters is enhanced over
conventional methods.
I. I NTRODUCTION
Recently, OFDM has considered as a a robust and promising
candidate for high data rate communications over frequency
selective channels. It has already been adopted in various
applications, for wire or wireless communications including
digital video and audio broadcasting (DVB)(DAB), asymmet-
ric digital subscriber line (ADSL) and local area networks
(LAN) [1]-[3]. Due to the long duration in between sub-
channel symbols in OFDM systems, the channel response can
be regarded as flat fading and correspondingly the inter-symbol
interference (ISI) due to each channel can be minimized
or completely removed by using cyclic prefix (CP). Several
channel estimation techniques and methods are proposed to
estimate channel responses. Some use training based tech-
niques while others use blind techniques [4]-[6]. But many
of these techniques assume the channel length is known or
can be estimated. Based on that length, a full channel model
which includes all parameters can then be estimated [7][8].
In reality, however, few channel parameters are significant
and the others are either zeros, insignificant or due to noise
(spares). Therefore, it is important not only to estimate the
channel or the channel length accurately but also to classify
whether a certain channel parameter(s) can be considered in
the receiver structure or not based on its significant. Clearly,
classifying such insignificant parameter(s) will be helpful in
978-1-4244-2295-1/08/$25.00 © 2008 IEEE
Authorized licensed use limited to: VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY. Downloaded on August 1, 2009 at 00:48 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
reducing; firstly; the complexity of receivers and secondly
the amount of interference that may introduce through the
spare taps. Currently, receiver complexity, processing speed
and performance are becoming important targets in mobile
multimedia especially after the introduction of the new video
and audio codecs and technology. Having a receiver with a
minimal hardware structure and also good performance will
enable such system to achieve these targets. In [10] a channel
estimation method based on the MDL criterion is proposed to
identify significant channel parameters. parameters. However,
it has high computational complexity. The most significant
taps (MST) is used in [10] to estimate the channel order
in. The most significant taps (MST) is also used in [11]
for the same task. However, both methods use and divide
the received data by training input pilots, i.e., non-blind and
the division can also increase the noise power, i.e., generate
spikes. Furthermore, the methods use long data size and high
SNR [11]. Another method is proposed in [12] for identifying
the principle channel paraments using generalized Akaike
information criterion (GAIC). This method, however used a
conventional LS based method, which is directly applied on
real data to estimate the channel response, thus increasing
the method sensitivity to noise. In addition, the method did
not normalize the training symbols energy to one. Further the
bit error rate (BER) has improved but it was only 0.5 dB.
Another recent method is proposed by us in [14], but the
method still uses training data, but will be extend. In this
paper, we propose a blind MIMO-COFDM model selection
method for the estimation and classification of significant
channel parameters. The approach uses a hierarchical MDL
based model selection technique combined with the EVD to
identify significant channel parameters. The paper is organized
as follows. Sec. II presents the data model and assumptions.
Sec. III and Sec. IV discuss the proposed method. Sec. V
presents simulation results. Sec. VI discusses the results and
finally the conclusion is given in Sec. VII.
II. DATA MODEL
Consider a synchronous K users N subcarriers up-link
COFDM system. The system uses P antenna arrays at the
base station to create space diversity as shown in Fig. 1.
The kth user’s baseband transmitted signal xk,n at the ith
111 MMSP 2008
symbol period can be modeled as the N -IFFT of the lth sub- A = diag {A1 , A2 , . . . , AK },
T
carrier input signal Ak bk (i)sk,l , i.e., b(i) = [b1 (i) b2 (i) . . . bK (i)] ,



 
  T T T T
1 
N
j2π(l − 1)n v = v1 v2 . . . vP
(N P ×1)
xk,n = Ak bk (i) sk,l exp (1)
N N Let S̃ = S◦G
l=1
= [s̃1 s̃2 . . . s̃K ](N P ×K)
Where, Ak and sk,l , l = 1, . . . , N represent the amplitude where, ⎡ ⎤
and spreading code for the kth user respectively. After the sk ◦ gk1
N -IFFT operation is performed, a guard interval of length ⎢ sk ◦ gk2 ⎥
⎢ ⎥
Ncp in form of a cyclic prefix (CP) or zero padding is s̃k = ⎢ .. ⎥ (6)
⎣ . ⎦
added, resulting in a symbol frame of length N + Ncp . The
symbol frame elements are transmitted one after another, sk ◦ gkP (N P ×1)
producing a sequence of transmitted signal. At the receiver, Therefore Eqn. (5) becomes,
a P -element antenna arrays are used to pick up the signals
and create diversity. This means that a signal transmitted by a r = S̃Ab(i) + v (7)
user will travel through different multipath channels to reach
each antenna element. Accordingly, each antenna will then sk,1 xk,1
receive combination of signals transmitted by different users
and corrupted by different channels. Finally, the demodulation sk,2 xk,2
is done by applying the FFT on the sequence of samples such
that the ISI can be removed. The demodulated received vector
Ak bk (i)
rp which is received by the pth array element at the ith symbol IFFT P/S
period can be written as,
K
 sk,N
rlp = p
Ak bk (i)sk,l gk,l + vlp (2) xk,N
k=1
In vector form,
K CP

p
r = Ak bk (i) (sk ◦ gkp ) +v p
(3)
k=1 r11

where,
p T r21
rp = [r1p r2p . . . rN ] , is a vector which represents other
users v1
the demodulated signal for pth antenna element, sk = S/P
T Channel
[sk,1 sk,2 . . . sk,N ] is the spreading code vector for user 1
& FFT
 T
k with ||sk || = 1, gkp = gk,1p p p CP
gk,2 . . . gk,N is the FFT of removal
p
hk , the kth user channel response at the pth antenna element, 1
rN
 T
p T
hpk = hpk,1 hpk,2 . . . hpk,N , vp = [v1p v2p . . . vN ] is the
AWGN, and the Hadamard product “ ◦ ” between sk and gkp
is given by ⎡ ⎤
p
sk,1 gk,1 r1P
⎢ sk,2 gk,2p ⎥
p ⎢ ⎥
sk ◦ gk = ⎢ .. ⎥ (4) other r2P
⎣ . ⎦ users vP
S/P
p
sk,N gk,N Channel
& FFT
P
After some manipulations, one can show that the received CP
removal
signals from a K users P element antenna arrays system can
P
be given by the vector rN

r = (S ◦ G) Ab(i) + v, (5)
  
T T T T Fig. 1. A MIMO COFDM system with P antenna elements
r = r1 r2 . . . rP
(N P ×1)
S = [s1 s2 . . . sK ](N ×K) III. C HANNEL E STIMATION
G = [g1 g2 . . . gK ](N P ×K) ,
    T T Let us define the covariance matrix,
gk = gk1
T
gk2
T
. . . gkP  
(N P ×1) R = E r rH (8)

112
Authorized licensed use limited to: VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY. Downloaded on August 1, 2009 at 00:48 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
By using the eigenvalue decomposition (EVD), R can also be where N and σe2r represent the observed data size and the
represented by, residual errors variance respectively. Residual errors are de-
  H  fined as the difference between the true data and the estimated
Λs 0 Us
R = UΛUH ≡ [Us Un ] , (9) data based on ĥk . Since the optimum response ĥk is the vector
0 Λn UHn which maximizes (14), i.e., maximizes the variance. Then one
Λs = diag {λ1 , λ2 , . . . , λK } , can define the error variance σe2r in (16) as,
(10)
Λn = diag {λK+1 , λK+2 , . . . , λN P } , 1
σe2r = (17)
ĥH
k Qk ĥk
λK+1 = λK+2 = . . . = λN P = σv2 (11)
At this stage the MDL criterion in Eqn. (16) can be used
Where, Us and Λs are the eigenvectors and the eigenvalues directly to differentiate between different channel models that
of the signal subspace and Un and Λn are the eigenvectors have different number of parameters . Using the method
and the eigenvalues of the noise subspace. directly, however, we will end up with 2L different models to
Define hk as a vector that contains all channel responses from be compared. This can also be high in computation complexity
user k to the p = 1, 2, . . . , P antenna elements, i.e., especially when the EVD is involved. However, in this work
 T T  T T we use a hierarchical MDL-base model selection procedure to
hk = h1k h2k . . . hP
k (12) classify the best fit model. The order of entry in this procedure
(LP ×1)
is based on hierarchical logical and theoretical considerations.
Since gk = FFT (hk ), then it can be written as, The decision of the best fitmodel in our method can occur
gk = (IP ⊗ FL ) hk (13) within one to L(L+1) 2 − 1 cycle(s) only. Obviously, This
is small when compared with the (2L ) cycles previously
Where ⊗ represents the Kronker product, FL is the first mentioned. Not only this advantages, but also we will show
L rows
 of the FFT matrix F whose elements Fl,n = that the use of the EVD is reduced. In addition the method is
exp −j2π (l−1)(n−1)
N , l = 1, . . . , N, n = 1, . . . , N , and Ip based on blind estimation techniques and not on training data
is an identity matrix of size (P × P ). as the one we presented in [16].
It has been shown in [15], in a similar model, that hk can be B. A Hierarchical Algorithm
estimated by exploiting the orthogonality between signal and
noise subspaces. In other words, In this algorithm, the MDL method can be first applied once
to estimate the channel length L̂k . For simplicity, we denote
ĥk = argmax ||UH
s (IP ⊗ (Sk FL )) hk ||
2
L̂k by L. Then, the hierarchical algorithm can be used as
||hk ||=1 follows:
i.e., (14) It begins with the full model (consider is as a parent model)
ĥk = argmax hH
k Qk hk that includes all parameters from ĥk.1 to ĥk,L , . Assign
||hk ||=1
cp as the parent hierarchical code at this step with cp =
where Sk = diag {sk }, and the quadratic matrix [1 1 . . . 1](L×1) . This means we have to estimate the full model
c
 (parent model), ĥkp . From the parent hierarchical code cp ,
Qk = IP ⊗ FH H
L (IP ⊗ Sk ) Us Us (IP ⊗ Sk ) (IP ⊗ FL ) one can generate the child hierarchical codes c1 , c2 , . . . cL
(15)
and estimate their model parameters, ĥck1 , ĥck2 , . . . ĥckL . For
By using EVD, clearly ĥk can be estimated as the dominant
example, the model ĥck which corresponds to the code c ,
eigenvector of Qk .
can be found as the dominant eigenvector of the quadratic
IV. I DENTIFICATION OF S IGNIFICANT C HANNEL function,

PARAMETERS Qck = diag {c } IP ⊗ FH H
L (IP ⊗ Sk ) Us Us (IP ⊗ Sk )
H
In this section, the hierarchical MDL based model selection (IP ⊗ FL ) diag {cl }
method proposed in [16] is extended and used to classify = Λc Qk ΛH c
significant channel parameters within ĥk , but in a blind (18)
scenario. The method can be outlined as follows: where diag {c } is replaced by the diagonal matrix Λc . The
advantages of Eqn. (18) is that we don’t need to calculate any
A. The Model Selection Criterion new eigenvector and/or eigenvalue for Qck from which ĥck
In this section the MDL criterion is used as a base to can be estimated. We can just scale the previously estimated
compare between different estimated channel models. For eigenvectors and eigenvalues of the matrix Qk itself using a
simplicity, let us consider the situation where P = 1 antenna binary matrix. The proof of that can be summarized as follows:
element, the MDL criterion for a model hk with  free Assume that VQk and ΛQk are the eigenvectors and the
parameters can be defined by eigenvalues of the matrix Qk respectively. Therefore Qk can
be represented by
 
MDL() = log σe2r + log(N ) (16) H
Qk = VQk ΛQk VQ . (19)
N k

113
Authorized licensed use limited to: VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY. Downloaded on August 1, 2009 at 00:48 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
 TABLE III
The problem now is to find the eigenvectors and the eigenval- A HIERARCHICAL MDL BASED ALGORITHM
ues of the matrix Qck = Λc Qk ΛH c . In other words,
  Step 1: Use the MDL to estimate the model order, L
Qck = (Λc VQk ) ΛQk VQ H
k
ΛHc . (20) Step 2: Start with the full parent code p = [1 1 . . . 1]L×1
c
Step 3: Estimate the parent model ĥkp = [ĥk,1 ĥk,2 · · · ĥk,L ]T , then
Since Λc is a diagonal matrix, this will directly lead to calculate its MDL value ecp
Step 4: Generate the child hierarchical codes c1 , c2 , . . . , cL , then use the
Qck = VQc ΛQk VQ
H
c . (21) c
idea in (21) to estimate each code’s model ĥk ,  = 1, 2, .., L (Initial iteration
k k
includes L + 1 models)
where clearly, VQc = Λc VQk and ΛQk are the eigenvectors Step 5: For each child model ĥc ,  = 1, 2, .., L, calculate the MDL values,
k
and the eigenvalues of Qck respectively. This means we can e = [ec1 , ec2 , . . . ecL ]
Step 6: Find the minimum MDL value among the child models em =
just scale the pre-determined eigenvectors of Qk using the a min{e}, where m is the index, then compare em with the parent ecp one
diagonal binary matrix Λc = diag {c } and avoid the use of Step 7: If em ≤ ecp , replace the parent code cp by cm then reduce L by
the
 EVD again,  i.e., computation complexity is reduced from one and return to Step:3. Otherwise Stop and cp will be then the procedure
L(L+1) decision about the model
2 − 1 or 2L EVD calculation to a single calculation.
Start
The final step is then to use Eqns. (16) to (18) to calculate
and compare the MDL values of all child models,
   Estimate L
ec = log σe2c + Nc log(N )

where, (22) Parent code
1 cp = [1 1 ... 1]
σe2c = H
 (ĥck ) Qck ĥck
and select the child which has the smallest MDL value. If this
child’s MDL value is less than or equal to its parent one then Generate the child H. codes
c1 , c2 , . . . , cL
we replace the parent code with this child code and continue,
otherwise we keep it and stop. In Tables I and II two iterations
for L = 4 describe how to generate the hierarchical codes Estimate the Parent model
c
Estimate the child models
c
ĥkp ĥck1 , ĥck2 , . . . , ĥkL
and their corresponding models to be tested when ec2 is the
L ← (L − 1)

smallest. The complete algorithm is summarized in Table III.

Find ecp , Parent model Find ec1 , ec2 , . . . , ecL
TABLE I MDL value models MDL values
I TERATION # 1

em = min{ec1 , ec2 , . . . , ecL }

Code Parameters MDL
cp 1 1 1 1 hk,1 hk,2 hk,3 hk,4 ecp m = index{em }
c1 0 1 1 1 0 hk,2 hk,3 hk,4 ec1
c2 1 0 1 1 hk,1 0 hk,3 hk,4 ec2
c3 1 1 0 1 hk,1 hk,2 0 hk,4 ec3 Parent code Yes
em ≤ ecp
c4 1 1 1 0 hk,1 hk,2 hk,3 0 ec4 cp = c m
No
ec2 ≤ ecp ⇒ Yes, then cp = c2
Model code = cp
TABLE II
I TERATION # 2
Stop
Code Parameters MDL
cp hk,1 hk,3 hk,4 ecp
Model MDL value

1 0 1 1 0
c1 0 0 1 1 0 0 hk,3 hk,4 ec1
c2 1 0 0 1 hk,1 0 0 hk,4 ec2
c3 1 0 1 0 hk,1 0 hk,3 0 ec3
ecp
ec2

V. S IMULATION R ESULTS
Child cL
Child c1

Child c2

Child c3
Parent cp

In the following simulations, identification (classification)

and estimation of significant channel parameters are calculated
for frequency selective time varying channels such as the one
shown in Fig. 3. The proposed method is applied to MIMO-
COFDM systems that have K = 1 and 4 users, P = 1 and 4
antenna elements, N = 32 subcarriers, L = 16 taps, Lt = 4
true channel paths and the covariance matrix R is estimated
over Ns = 128 symbols. Simulation results are depicted in
Figs. 4 to 9 and listed in Tables IV and V for the first user
Stop
Fig. 2. Hierachial MDL backward elimination based method
(averaged performance). In addition, the bit error rate (BER)
as a a performance indicator is shown in Fig. 10 for a system
with K = 4 users, P = 2 antenna, N = 32, Ns = 64 symbols,
L = 16 and Lt = 4 true channel paths. In these simulations,
the term identifiability is used to represent the probability of

114
Authorized licensed use limited to: VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY. Downloaded on August 1, 2009 at 00:48 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
correctly identifying/classifying a certain number of significant
parameters correctly (Note: the time index of each parameter
is also considered). Also we use the symbol pf to represent
the over all probability of identifying all channel parameters
correctly. Let pk (l) be the probability of identifying each
individual parameter hk,l correctly. Then pf can be calculated
by
L
 a better measure. The overall identifiability is ≥ 80% which is
pf = pk,l . (23)
l=1
In all simulations, SNR is defined as the value of Es /σv2 in
dB, where Es represents the symbol Energy per user and σv2
is √
the noise power. The spreading codes are normalized by
1/ N and the time varying channel is generated such that
each user’s channel response has a unit norm, i.e., the user’s
SNR is per channel per symbol.
VI. D ISCUSSIONS
From simulations in Figs. 4 to 7, one can see that the
dominant number of identified parameters L̂t represented by
the hight is equal to 4 which is a true estimate of the number
of channel paths, Lt = 4. Since the channel response is
time varying, thus any channel path can carry a significant,
non-significant or a zero parameter at a certain time instant
as given by the channel response shown in Fig. 3. Then
we expect to identify an estimate of (1 ≤ L̂t ≤ 4) with
higher probabilities than L̂t > 4. From probabilities shown
in those figures, one can see that these histograms are likely
to follow a Rayleigh distribution with a peak at L̂t = 4 and
the events that L̂t ≤ 4 is most probable while the events
that L̂t > 4 is least or approximately zero probable. Also,
we can clearly see the probability that L̂t > 8 is almost zero
even at SNR = 0 dB, i.e., we can still reduce the number of
taps for combining, de-correlator or equalizer receivers by at
least a half. Accordingly, these results are obviously matched
and the proposed algorithm is quite promising in identifying
the correct channel. When increasing the number of antenna
elements from P = 1 to P = 4, i.e., introducing more
diversity as shown in Figs. 4 and 5, this obviously increases
the identifiability. While increasing the number of users from
K = 1 to K = 4 as shown in Figs. 4 and 6, the identifiability
is reduced due the increase in the multiple access interference
(MAI). By increasing the number of antenna elements to
P = 4 as shown in Fig. 7 to the system shown in Fig. 6
the identifiability enhanced, however the effect of MAI is
still present. Simulation results shown in Figs. 8 and 9 and
organized increasingly in Tables IV and V is for the over all
identifiability pf in two cases. The first is for the case of
identifying correctly a channel model which has Lt = 4 paths
while the second is for identifying correctly Lt = 3 or 4, i.e.,
pf (Lt = 3)∩pf (Lt = 4). From these simulations, one can see
that the proposed algorithm performance varies according to
the number of users and antenna elements similarly as before.
In other words, increasing the number of users introduces more
MAI which in turn reduces the performance, while increasing
the number of antenna elements enhances the performance.
115
Authorized licensed use limited to: VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY. Downloaded on August 1, 2009 at 00:48 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.
Since Lt = 4 does not suggest that all four parameters are
significant, however simulated pf for Lt = 4 in Tables IV
still promising since it works at low SNRs > 0 dB and short
Ns = 128 symbols. Also it provides around 50% over all
identifiability, i.e., reduction in the receiver branches by a
half. Since the channel amplitude response is time varying,
simulated pf for Lt = 3 or 4 in Tables IV can be considered as
clearly support the claim that the proposed method succeeded
in identifying the correct channel. From Fig. 10, simulated
BERs show that the performance of the proposed method is
improved over other conventional methods that uses channels
estimated with, an N -FFT and/or L length. This improvement
increases significantly as the SNR increases. The proposed
method gave the smallest BER except for when the channel
is known exactly.
VII. C ONCLUSIONS
A combined blind channel estimation and model selection
method has been proposed for the identification and estimation
of significant channel parameters in blind MIMO-COFDM
systems. The Estimation and classification method is low
in computation complexity when compared to conventional
methods and can be used to enhance the system performance
and reduce its complexity. The method can also minimize
the interference that can be introduced through spares or in-
significant channel paths. Simulation results show that with the
proposed method, one can estimate and identify the significant
channel parameters with high probabilities at low SNRs and
also with short data sequence. Furthermore the performance
of the receiver based on the classified parameters is also
enhanced over conventional methods. Based on these findings,
we recommend the usage of the significant channel parameters
in OFDM systems.
R EFERENCES
[1] S. Hara, R. Prasad Multicarrier Techniques for 4G Mobile Communi-
cations. Artech House, 2003.
[2] A. S. Bahai, B. R. Saltzberg, M. Ergen Multi-Carrier Digital Commu-
nications: Theory and Applications of Ofdm . Springer, 2004.
[3] R. Prasad, OFDM for Wireless Communications Systems. Artech House,
2004.
[4] M. Baek; M. Kim; Y. You; H. Song; “Semi-blind channel estimation
and PAR reduction for MIMO-OFDM system with multiple antennas,”
IEEE Trans. on Broadcasting, vol. 50, pp. 414 - 424, December 2004.
[5] M. Necker, G. L. Stuber; “Totally blind channel estimation for OFDM
on fast varying mobile radio channels,” IEEE Trans. on Wireless
Communications, vol. 3, pp. 1514 - 1525, September 2004.
[6] Y. Zeng; T. Ng; “A semi-blind channel estimation method for multiuser
multiantenna OFDM systems,” IEEE Trans. on Signal Processing, vol.
52, pp. 1419 - 1429, May 2004.
[7] D. Marelli, M. Fu; “A subband approach to channel estimation and
equalization for DMT and OFDM systems,” IEEE Trans. on Commu-
nications, vol., pp.1850 - 1858, November 2005.
[8] K. Zheng; G. Zheng; W. Wang; “A novel uplink channel estimation in
OFDM-CDMA systems,” IEEE Trans. on Consumer Electronics, vol.
50, pp. 125 - 129, February 2004.
[9] J. J. van de Beek, O. Edfors, M. Sandell, S. K. Wilson, and P. O.
Borjesson; “On channel estimation in OFDM systems,” IEEE VTC, vol.
2, pp. 815-819, July 1995.
[10] B. Yang, K. B. Letaief, R. S. Cheng, and Z. Cao, “Channel estimation for
OFDM transmission in multipath fading channels based on parametric
channel modeling ,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 49, no. 3, pp. 467479,
March 2001.
[11] H. Minn and V. K. Bhargava, “An investigation into time-domain
approach for OFDM channel estimation,” IEEE Trans. Broadcasting, 0.8 0.8
0.7 0.7
vol. 46, no. 4, pp. 240248, December 2000. 0.6 0.6
[12] M. R. Raghavendra and K. Giridhar, “Improving Channel Estimation 0.5 0.5

in OFDM Systems for Sparse Multipath Channels,” IEEE signal proc. 0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3
letters, vol. 12, pp. 52-55, January 2005. 0.2 0.2
[13] A. Barron, J. Rissanen and B. Yu, “The Minimum Description Length 0.1 0.1

Principle in Coding and Modeling,” (Special Commemorative Issue: 0 0

Information Theory: 1948-1998) IEEE. Trans. Inform. Theory pp.2743- 2

4
2
4
2760, October 1998. 6
8
6
8
Lt
[14] A. A. El-Sallam, “To the Selection of Principal Channel Parameters in Lt 10
12
10
12
OFDM Systems: A MUSIC MDL Sphericity Ratio Based Approach,” 14 8 10 14 8 10
4 6 4 6
16 0 2 SNR in dB 16 0 2
IEEE signal proc. letters 2008 (submitted). SNR in dB

[15] A. Purwoko and H. Ali, “A New Frequency Offset Estimation Technique

for up-link MC-CDMA Systems,” In Proc. of IEEE Intl. conference on
Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing (ICASSP04), Rome, vol. 4, pp. Fig. 6. The probability of detecting Fig. 7. The probability of detecting
769-772, Montreal, May 2004. the true number of significant parame- the true number of significant parame-
[16] A. A. El-Sallam, S. Kayhan and A. M. Zoubir, “Two backward ters for K = 4, P = 1 ters for K = 4, P = 4
elimination based approaches for low order model selection,” In Proc.
p (L =3 or L =4)
of 7thd Int. Symposium on Signal Processing and Its Applications p (L =4)
f t
f t t

(ISSPA’03), Vol. 2, pp. 535-538, July 2003.

1
0.8 0.9
1 0.7 0.8
0.8 0.7
0.6
0.6 0.6
Channel amplitude response

0.4 0.5 0.5

0.2 0.4 0.4
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 0.3 0.3
1 0.2
0.2
0.8 0.1
0.6 0.1 0
0.4 0
0.2
0 10
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 10 8
1 8 6
0.8 6
0.6
4
SNR in dB K=1, P=4
0.4 4 2
SNR in dB K=1, P=4 K=1, P=1
0.2 2 K=1, P=1 0 K=4, P=4
0 0 K=4, P=4 K=4, P=1
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
K=4, P=1
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0 Fig. 9. The over all probability that
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Fig. 8. The over all probability that
Time index L̂t = 3 or L̂t = 4 for K = 1, 4 and
Fig. 3. The channel amplitude response for the first user with Lt = 4 paths L̂t = 4 for K = 1, 4 and P = 1, 4
P = 1, 4

TABLE V
T HE OVER ALL PROBABILITY THAT L̂t = 3 OR L̂t = 4 FOR K = 1, 4 AND
P = 1, 4, N = 32, Ns = 128 SYMBOLS AND L = 16

0.8 0.8
0.7 0.7
# of users, antenna SNR in dB
0.6 0.6
0.5 0.5
K, P 0 2 4 6 8 10
0.4 0.4 K = 1, P = 1 0.4837 0.8933 0.9404 0.9424 0.9414 0.9418
K = 1, P = 4
0.3 0.3
0.2
0.8502 0.9302 0.9361 0.9330 0.9332 0.9330
0.2
0.1 0.1 K = 4, P = 1 0.4837 0.8611 0.9331 0.9357 0.9348 0.9365
0 0 K = 4, P = 4 0.6598 0.8524 0.9113 0.9237 0.9289 0.9303
2 2
4 4
6
6
8 0
8
Lt 10
Lt 10 10
12
12 8 10 1− With Perfect knowledge
14 8 10 14
4 6
4 6 16 0 2 2− With Full N−FFT length
16 0 2 SNR in dB
SNR in dB
−1
3− With length L
10 4− Proposed Method

Fig. 4. The probability of detecting Fig. 5. The probability of detecting

the true number of significant parame- the true number of significant parame- 10
−2

ters for K = 1, P = 1 ters for K = 1, P = 4

BER

−3
10
TABLE IV
T HE OVER ALL PROBABILITY THAT L̂t = 4 FOR K = 1, 4 AND P = 1, 4,
N = 32, Ns = 128 SYMBOLS AND L = 16 10
−4

# of users, antenna SNR in dB 10

−5

K, P 0 2 4 6 8 10
K = 1, P = 1 0.1986 0.5197 0.5794 0.5823 0.5847 0.5868
K = 1, P = 4 0.4932 0.5880 0.5989 0.5989 0.6025 0.6046 10
−6

K = 4, P = 1 0.1604 0.4432 0.5207 0.5207 0.5199 0.5198 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

SNR in dB
K = 4, P = 4 0.2888 0.4531 0.5124 0.5289 0.5331 0.5328

Fig. 10. BER for a system with K = 4, P = 2 N = 32, Ns = 64, L = 16

and Lt = 4 and different channels cases (1, 2, 3, and 4)

116
Authorized licensed use limited to: VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY. Downloaded on August 1, 2009 at 00:48 from IEEE Xplore. Restrictions apply.