I have read a paper that performs Channel Estimation of Wireless Channel as follows.

A training sequence of length $N$, lets call it $a_N(i)$ for $i\in[0:N-1]$ is repeated twice then sent out over the channel.

Assume the transmit sequence formed of this two sequeses is denoted by $s_{CE}(t)$.

The received signal is given by (assuming channel of length $T_{CH}$) is $$r_{CE}(t) = \sum_{t'=0}^{T_{CH}-1}h(t')s_{CE}(t-t')+n(t)$$

The authors claim that if one takes the autocorrelation between a sequence $a_N(i)$ and the received signal then we can mathematically write the autorcorrelation as

$$R(t)= \frac{1}{N}\sum_{d=0}^{N-1}r_{CE}(t+d\underbrace{-N+1}_{????}) a_{N}^*(d) $$

My question is why is there a need for the term I have underbrace $-N+1$. I thought that the autocorrelation is in general expressed as

$$R(t)= \frac{1}{N}\sum_{d=0}^{N-1}r_{CE}(t+d) a_{N}^*(d) $$

Thanks looking forward for your view!

Update: The following is the reference


I particular (25) and (26) are my main concerns.

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Can you please give a reference for the paper? $\endgroup$ – Oliver Jun 1 '15 at 4:40
  • $\begingroup$ Are you sure this is for channel estimation and not for timing synchronization? And shouldn't this be called crosscorrelation? $r_\mathrm{CE}$ and $a_\mathrm N$ arre different signals after all. Finally, the formulas seem to mix continous and discrete time signals, since $t$ is continous time (I guess?) and $N$ is an integer number? Or is this just an odd notation? A reference to the original paper would be nice. $\endgroup$ – Deve Jun 2 '15 at 7:33
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks @Deve I will add the reference to paper. Please let me know what you think. $\endgroup$ – Tyrone Jun 2 '15 at 13:53

I think it's just a trick which makes $R(t)=0, \mathrm{when}\quad t<0$.

First, $-N+1$ is just a time offset and not affect the essence of function.

$r_{CE}(t)$ is bounded to $[0, 2N+T_{CH}-2]$, and $a_N(t)$ to $[0, N-1]$. In the form you gave, $R(t)$ is bounded to $[-N+1, 2N+T_{CH}-2]$. May be the author want the non-zero value of $R(t)$ also starts at 0, so he just move it right with $N-1$ length, which causes the $-N+1$ term in the equation.

--------- Why $R(t)$ is bounded as that -------------

This is just a explanation to give some intuition, not a formal proof. Consider two function $f(t)$ and $g(t)$, which $f(t)=0, t \notin [a, b]$ and $g(t)=0, t\notin [c, d]$. Now we want to calculate the sum of products, i.e., $S=\sum_t f(t)g(t)$, $[a,b]$ and $[c,d]$ must be overlapped, right? Thus we get $a \le d $ and $c\le b$.

Get back to the $R(t)=\sum _d r_{CE}(t+d)a^*(d)$(note here the argument is $d$), $a^*(d)$ is bounded to $[0, N-1]$ and $r_{CE}(t+d)$ to $[-t, L-1-t]$, in which $L=2N+T_{CH}-1$ is the length of $r_{CE}(d)$. Here we get $a=0, b=N-1, c=-t, d=L-1-t$. Using $a \le d $ and $c \le b$, we get $-(N-1) \le t \le L-1$.

As to why $r_{CE}$ is bounded as that, you can make a same process to understand it.

| improve this answer | |
  • $\begingroup$ thanks, can you please explain why $R (t)$is bounded as you showed? $\endgroup$ – Tyrone Jun 1 '15 at 10:05
  • $\begingroup$ @Tyrone I updated my answer and hope it helps. $\endgroup$ – seven7e Jun 2 '15 at 2:03

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.