Premium
Joint parameter estimation and decoding in a distributed receiver
Author(s) -
Waqas Ahsan,
Nguyen Khoa,
Lechner Gottfried,
Chan Terence
Publication year - 2022
Publication title -
international journal of satellite communications and networking
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.388
H-Index - 39
eISSN - 1542-0981
pISSN - 1542-0973
DOI - 10.1002/sat.1460
Subject(s) - computer science , algorithm , maximum a posteriori estimation , factor graph , particle filter , decoding methods , channel (broadcasting) , continuous phase modulation , doppler effect , minimum mean square error , kalman filter , mathematical optimization , statistics , mathematics , telecommunications , artificial intelligence , astronomy , maximum likelihood , physics , estimator
Summary This paper presents an algorithm for iterative joint channel parameter (carrier phase, Doppler shift, and Doppler rate) estimation and decoding of transmission over channels affected by Doppler shift and Doppler rate using a distributed receiver. This algorithm is derived by applying the sum‐product algorithm (SPA) to a factor graph representing the joint a posteriori distribution of the information symbols and channel parameters given the channel output. In this paper, we present two methods for dealing with intractable messages of the SPA. In the first approach, we use particle filtering with sequential importance sampling for the estimation of the unknown parameters. We also propose a method for fine‐tuning of particles for improved convergence. In the second approach, we approximate our model with a random walk phase model, followed by a phase tracking algorithm and polynomial regression algorithm to estimate the unknown parameters. We derive the Weighted Bayesian Cramer‐Rao Bounds for joint carrier phase, Doppler shift, and Doppler rate estimation, which take into account the prior distribution of the estimation parameters and are accurate lower bounds for all considered signal‐to‐noise ratio values. Numerical results (of bit error rate and the mean‐square error of parameter estimation) suggest that phase tracking with the random walk model slightly outperforms particle filtering. However, particle filtering has a lower computational cost than the random walk model‐based method.