BER Modeling for Interference Canceling FIR

Wiener Equalizer

Tamoghna Roy and A. A. (Louis) Beex
DSPRL Wireless@VT Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering
Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061-0111, USA


AbstractThe performance of a narrowband interference
canceling FIR Wiener equalizer is analyzed. While mean squared
error (MSE) relates to bit error rate (BER), their connection is
not necessarily a direct one when the detector output noise is not
Gaussian. We show that BER can be increasing for increasing
signal power (or decreasing noise power) even though MSE is
decreasing. A Gaussian BER model may not be accurate then.
For digital modulation schemes using FIR Wiener equalizers
in a narrowband interference dominated environment, a
Gaussian sum model is derived for the Wiener filter output. The
analytical evaluation of the probability of bit error based on the
Gaussian sum model produces a BER prediction that is shown to
provide a close match with observed/estimated BER, in
particular for lower order equalizers.

Index Termsnarrowband interference, FIR equalization,
BER, Gaussian sum model.
I. INTRODUCTION
Wiener Filtering theory provides an analytical expression
for the Mean Square Error (MSE). However, for practical
communication systems, Bit Error Rate (BER) is used as a
component of the Quality of Service (QoS) metric. We propose
a model to predict the BER of a communication system in a
narrowband interference (dominated) environment, where a
transversal (FIR) Wiener equalizer mitigates the interference.
Previous work in BER modeling was done for systems
under various scenarios. In some of the earlier works [1-2] the
BER model is a Gaussian one and shown to work reasonably
well for larger size equalizers. The Gaussian BER approach
was also adopted in [3]. A different model was proposed to
predict the BER for OFDM under narrowband interference [4].
However, no model is given to predict the BER after
interference mitigation. More recently there has been work in
developing non-Gaussian models to estimate BER [5].
However, the latter effort pertains to a fading channel and the
interference is caused by multiple access.
II. PROBLEM STATEMENT
Figure 1 shows the block diagram of the system under
consideration. The symbols transmitted at time instant n are
denoted by
n
d , while
n
i

and
n
n respectively denote the
interference and the zero-mean AWGN (additive, white,
Gaussian noise). Thus, the input process
n
x to the Wiener
equalizer is given by:
= + +
n n n n
x d i n (1)
which is seen to be a summation of three independent wide
sense stationary processes.

Figure 1: Block diagram of the system under consideration.
Let | |
1 2
T
L
w w w = w be the vector of FIR Wiener
filter weights, and | |
1 1
T
n n n n L
x x x
+
= x the vector
input to the Wiener filter at time n; T denotes the transpose
operator. The output of the Wiener filter at time n is then

n n
n n n
d i n
n n n
y
y y y
=
=
= + +
H
H H H
w x
w d + w i + w n (2)
where H denotes the Hermitian transpose operator, and the
other definitions follow the vector convention above. The FIR
Wiener filter is found by solving the Wiener-Hopf equation,
=
x
R w p (3)
with the definitions:
{ }
H
n n
E
x
R x x and
{ }
0
n n n
E d
-

p x . The
resulting minimum MSE is then given by

2 H
d
MMSE o = w p (4)
Note that in the narrowband interference canceling
environment, the FIR Wiener weights will be dependent on the
interference frequency
i
f , which affects
x
R .
To evaluate BER performance, the PDF of
n
y conditioned
on
0
n n
d

(usually ( )
0
1 2 n L = , the center of equalization,
but this reference point can be located anywhere) is needed for
each of the possible symbol values the latter can take on.
III. GAUSSIAN SUM MODEL
The mean and variance of the right hand side components in
(2) can be evaluated separately because the inputs to the
Wiener equalizer are independent and the equalizer is linear
time invariant (LTI). We now look at each component,
conditioned on a particular symbol.
978-1-4673-0009-4/13/$26.00 2013 IEEE
2013 International Conference on Computing, Networking and Communications (ICNC) Workshop on Computing, Networking and
Communications
278
w
w
w
.
t
a
k
e
o
f
f
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
.
c
o
m
For Further Details-A Vinay 9030333433,0877-2261612 0
A. Conditional PDF of
n
n
y
The AWGN is independent of the symbol sequence and the
interference, so that this output component does not depend on
the conditioning symbol. A linear combination of independent
Gaussian random variables produces a Gaussian random
variable. So in order to completely describe the PDF of
n
n
y

we
need to evaluate its mean and variance. Note that, as we are
working at baseband, the zero-mean AWGN is circularly
symmetric, with real and imaginary parts that are independent
and identically distributed.
The mean of
n
n
y

is given in (5),

{ }
{ }
1
1
1
( )
0
n
n n
L
i n i
i
L
i n
i
E y E
E w n
w E n
-
+
=
-
=
=

=
`
)
= =

H
w n
(5)
and the variance of
n
n
y

is given in (6),

( ) { }
{ }
1
1
2
1
2
n
n n
L
i n i
i
L
i n
i
n
Var y Var
Var w n
w Var n
o
-
+
=
=
=

=
`
)
=
=

H
2
2
w n
w
(6)
where
2
o
n
is the input noise power and
2
. denotes the
Euclidean norm. As a result, the PDF of
n
n
y is given by:

2
~ ( , )
n
n n
y CN o
2
2
0 w (7)
where,
2
~ ( , 2 ) _ o CN indicates that _ is a complex normal
random variable, or a real vector random variable with mean
( ) { }
( ) { }
Re
Im
E
E
_

_
(
= (
(

and covariance
2
2
0
0
o
o
(
(

.
B. Conditional PDF of
d
n
y
Let the modulation scheme have M symbols denoted
by{ }
1
M
m m
|
=
, so that the conditional PDF of interest is
( )
0
d
n n n m
f y d |

= . Note that this fixes the equalization-

point component in
n
d , which is multiplied by the
corresponding element of the weight vector, say
j
w , while the
L-1 remaining terms in
H
n
w d produce a sum of random
variables, i.e.

0
1
0,
|
| |

=
= =
= +

n n m
L
d
n j m l k
d
l j
y w w (8)
The first term on the right-hand-side is deterministic, while
the symbols under the sum are random and independent. In
addition assuming a modulation scheme such that the mean of
all possibilities in the constellation is zero, we can then
evaluate mean and variance and find:

0
1
2
2
0,
~ ,
|
|
| o

=
= =
| |
|
\ .

n n m
L
d
n j m l
d
l j
y w w (9)
where
2
|
o is the symbol power.
However, the PDF of the left-hand-side in (9) is not
Gaussian. Each of the terms under the sum in (8) contributes a
PDF (actually a PMF, or probability mass function)
corresponding to a symbol constellation that is rotated and
scaled, by
l
w .
( )
1
1
~ | o |
=

M
l k l m
m
w x w
M
(10)
The terms under the sum in (8) are independent, so that the
overall PMF is given by the convolution of the various PMFs
of the form in (10). The resulting conditional PDF is therefore:

( ) ( )
0
1 1
1
, , 1
1
1,
1
L
i
M
d
n n n m m L
k k
L
m j m l k
l j
f y d x
M
w w
| o
| |

= =
= =
=

k
k

(11)
Figure 2 shows an example to illustrate the PDF described
in (11). For our example we used the QPSK modulation
scheme so that 4 M = . The filter length L is taken to be 3 and
the interference frequency 1
i
f e = .
-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
Real
I
m
a
g
i
n
a
r
y


Output Constellation
Input Symbol

Figure 2: Output Constellation for QPSK with 3 L = and 1
i
f e = .
Figure 3 shows the output constellation for 1 4
i
f e = . For
the scenario under consideration, the change in interference
frequency changes the Wiener weights; the latter then change
the rotations of the contributing components. Under both
configurations,
( )
0
d
n n n m
f y d |

= has
1
16

=
L
M discrete
279
w
w
w
.
t
a
k
e
o
f
f
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
.
c
o
m
For Further Details-A Vinay 9030333433,0877-2261612 1
values which are equally likely. The results in Figs. 2 and 3
are consistent with (11).
-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
Real
I
m
a
g
i
n
a
r
y


Output Constellation
Input Symbol

Figure 3: Output Constellation for QPSK with 3 L = and 1 4
i
f e = .
C. Conditional PDF of
i
n
y
The Wiener filter aims to minimize MSE. In an interference
dominated environment this means that the interference must
(pretty much) be canceled. In a narrowband interference case,
the interference can be canceled (or predicted) equally well by
each of the available weights. The magnitudes of the off-center
weights are equal and together produce an estimate that cancels
the interference at the center weight in a trade-off with
distorting the desired signal (symbol) by minimizing MSE. The
trade-off is such that in an interference dominant environment,
the residual interference in the Wiener filter output,
i
n
y , is
made negligible in comparison with the other two components
contributing to the Wiener filter output.
D. Conditional PDF of
n
y
The noise component and the signal component of the LTI
Wiener filter output are independent, so that the overall PDF is
the convolution of the corresponding PDFs, i.e. the convolution
of the results in (7) and (11), which is a Gaussian Sum Model
(GSM).

( ) ( )
0
1 1
2
2
1 2
, , 1
1
1,
1
,
L
i
M
n n n m m n L
k k
L
m j m l k
l j
f y d CN
M
w w
| o
| |

= =
= ~
=

k
k
w

(12)
Based on the conditional PDF model in (12), we can
calculate
e
P , the probability of bit-error, by evaluating the
volume enclosed by the complex normal distribution in the
regions corresponding to a bit error. The regions are
determined by the modulation scheme used and the choice of
decision boundaries.
For example, for the QPSK modulation scheme as used in
the subsequent simulations, a received symbol is detected as a
first quadrant symbol if both the in-phase and quadrature
component are positive. If the transmitted symbol is in the first
quadrant the probability of bit error (
e
P ) is evaluated by
computing the volume enclosed by each of the complex
normal distributions in (12) in the second, third, and fourth
quadrant. The volume enclosed in the third quadrant is
multiplied by 2 (as the third quadrant implies that both bits are
in error) before being added to the contributions from the
second and fourth quadrant. That final sum is then divided by
the factor
1 L
M which is the probability associated with each
of the terms in the GSM.
IV. GAUSSIAN MODEL
To improve the BER performance of a communication
system, longer equalizers are generally used. With an increase
in the length of an equalizer, the number of individual
Gaussians in (12) increases and the GSM becomes
computationally expensive.
For example, 3 L = for a QPSK modulation scheme gives
rise to 16 Gaussian distribution terms in the GSM and the
centers of example distributions were shown in Figs. 2 and 3.
Figure 4 shows the output constellation for an equalizer of
length 10 L = , containing 262,144 Gaussian sum terms.
Figure 4: Output Constellation for QPSK with 10 L = and 1
i
f e = .
While there are clearly non-Gaussian features, it seems
reasonable to approximate this fairly circular probability mass
with its best Gaussian fit. So for larger values of L we propose
an approximated version of the Gaussian Sum Model,
consisting of a single Gaussian term.
A. Conditional PDF of
n
y
The Gaussian model assumes the PDF of the conditional
output
( )
0
|

=
n n n m
f y d to follow a Gaussian distribution. The
mean of this distribution is the same as that of the PDF in (9)
and the variance is given by the sum of the variances described
in (7) and (9). Thus, the Gaussian model PDF is given by:

( )
0
1
2
2 2
0,
~ ,
L
n n n m j m n l
l j
f y d CN w w
|
| | o o

= =
| |
= +
|
\ .

2
2
w (13)
We use the PDF characterized in (13) to then model the
probability of bit error for the Gaussian model.
280
w
w
w
.
t
a
k
e
o
f
f
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
.
c
o
m
For Further Details-A Vinay 9030333433,0877-2261612 2
V. SIMULATION RESULTS
A. Gaussian Sum Model
In the simulation example, we look into a communication
system that employs QPSK modulation, i.e. 4 M = , and for
which the average over all constellation values equals zero.
The QPSK signal is corrupted by a narrowband interference
(represented by a complex sinusoid) and zero mean additive
white Gaussian noise. The signal, interference, and noise are
all wide sense stationary and independent processes with
known statistics, so that the Wiener filter is LTI and its MSE
performance can be readily evaluated, according to (4).
Figure 5 shows the MSE performance of the
communication system for a Wiener equalizer of length 3 L =
for two different situations: when there is no narrowband
interference at all and when there is strong narrowband
interference (ISR = 20), and for two different interference
frequencies of 1
i
f e = and 1 4
i
f e = .
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
-20
-18
-16
-14
-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
E
b
/N
0
(dB)
M
S
E

(
d
B
)


Theoretical MSE: No Interference
Theoretical MSE: ISR = 20, f = 1/e
Theoretical MSE: ISR = 20, f = 1/4e
Observed MSE: No Interference
Observed MSE: ISR = 20, f = 1/e
Observed MSE: ISR = 20, f = 1/4e

Figure 5: MSE performance for L = 3.
It is to be noted that for all cases the MSE performance is
monotonically decreasing with a decrease in noise power;
behavior one might reasonably expect. The observed MSE
values are from simulation results, averaging the results from
1000 independent realizations of 10,000 QPSK symbols each.
The observed MSE behave as predicted by theory.
The scenario when there is no interference is the same as
an AWGN channel. For a QPSK system the theoretical
expression for
e
P in the AWGN channel is given by [8]:

0
2
b
e
E
P Q
N
| |
=
|
\ .
(14)
The latter result provides a sanity check for a limiting case of
the proposed model.
Figure 6 shows P
e
, the probability of bit-error performance,
for the same system when there is no interference and when
ISR = 20 dB and 1
i
f e = .
As expected, the curves generated by (14) and GSM with
ISR = - dB (no interference) in (12) are indistinguishable.
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
-14
-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
E
b
/N
0
(dB)
l
o
g
1
0
(
P
e
)


BER Theoretical
BER Gaussian Sum: No Interference
BER Gaussian Sum: ISR = 20

Figure 6:
e
P performance for L = 3 under no interference and for ISR = 20 dB
and 1
i
f e = .
The curve for ISR = 20 dB and 1
i
f e = shows that
performance in terms of probability of bit error has
deteriorated substantially when ISR is dominant and as
observed from Fig. 5 in terms of MSE performance also.
To take a closer look at the case for ISR = 20 dB, we next
look at BER performance based on simulation results and its
prediction using models.
Figure 7 shows the BER performance when there is a
strong narrowband interference corrupting the desired signal.
0 5 10 15 20 25
-1.3
-1.2
-1.1
-1
-0.9
-0.8
-0.7
E
b
/N
0
(dB)
l
o
g
1
0
(
B
E
R
)


Gaussian sum model: f = 1/e
Gaussian model: f = 1/e
Observed: f = 1/e
Gaussian sum model: f = 1/4e
Gaussian model: f = 1/4e
Observed: f = 1/4e

Figure 7: BER performance for L = 3 and ISR = 20 dB.
For this simulation again ISR = 20 dB, with 1
i
f e = and
1 4
i
f e = . The observed BER values were generated by
Monte-Carlo simulation, in the same way the observed MSE
results were generated for Fig. 5 earlier.
We see that unlike the MSE curve in Fig. 5 the BER curve
is not necessarily monotonically decreasing as noise power is
decreasing (or, equivalently, signal power is increasing). This
result indicates that MSE and BER are not linked directly, not
even in terms of overall behavior. Similar observations were
281
w
w
w
.
t
a
k
e
o
f
f
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
.
c
o
m
For Further Details-A Vinay 9030333433,0877-2261612 3
made in [9] while dealing with interference mitigation and
equalization in band limited channels. Note that the Gaussian
sum model from (12) provides a good prediction of the BER
of the system, for both interference frequencies.
The explanation for the increase in BER when SNR
(signal-to-noise ratio) is increasing comes from the Gaussian
Sum Model. The centers of gravity (COG) or means for each
of the components in the GSM are shown in Fig. 2. SNR is
reflected in the radius of the circular probability mass
concentrated at each of these COG. When SNR is low these
radii are large and a reduction in these radii corresponds to
less probability mass spilling outside of the first quadrant. At
some point, after increasing SNR, the radii are small enough
that the probability mass associated with the COG inside the
first quadrant spills outside less while more of the probability
mass associated with the COG outside of the first quadrant
(there are four of these) becomes concentrated outside of the
first quadrant. The latter causes the BER to then increase and
eventually saturate at the fraction of the number of COG
outside the first quadrant relative to the total number of COG.
For 3 L = and 1
i
f e = that saturation BER is (4/32=) 0.125
(or -0.9031 dB), while for 3 L = and 1 4
i
f e = that saturation
BER is (2/32=) 0.0625 (or -1.204 dB). As seen in Fig. 7, SNR
needs to be higher to reach the latter limiting BER, which is
understandable from Fig. 3, as some of the constellation points
are very close to a decision boundary (requiring tighter
concentration of the probability mass at those COG).
B. Gaussian Model
In Fig. 7 the performance predicted by the Gaussian model
was shown for the 3 L = case. Figure 8 shows the BER
performance of the same system under the same strong
narrowband interference (ISR = 20 dB), for 1
i
f e = , but now
the equalizer length L is set to 10.
0 5 10 15 20 25
-3.5
-3
-2.5
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
E
b
/N
0
(dB)
l
o
g
1
0
(
B
E
R
)


Gaussian sum model
Gaussian model
Observed

Figure 8: BER performance for L = 10 with ISR = 20 dB and 1
i
f e = .
While not shown in Fig. 8, the same experiment was
performed for interference frequency 1 4
i
f e = ; the results
were indistinguishable from those in Fig. 8.
For 3 L = we saw (in Fig. 7) that the Gaussian model
provided less accurate results than the Gaussian sum model,
especially at higher SNR. The actual BER performance was
over-estimated by the Gaussian model over most of the SNR
range. For 10 L = (in Fig. 8) we see that the prediction of the
Gaussian model is now under-estimating actual BER
performance but it is much closer to the observed values based
on simulation. In fact, for the most practical range of SNR
values, E
b
/N
0
below 15 dB, the Gaussian model is a
reasonably good one for the narrowband interference
dominated environment. Observe that the Gaussian sum model
provides very accurate results; we note, however, that this
accuracy comes at the expense of a considerably increased
computational burden.
The BER saturation effect is still observed for 10 L = , it
just happens at a lower level. For larger equalizers the
estimation of the narrowband interference gets better, but the
residual interference power starts to act as a limiting factor to
performance as SNR becomes very large.
VI. CONCLUSION
We have shown that the BER performance of a digital
communication system when operating in a narrowband
interference dominated environment does not always follow
along with the MSE performance. The BER performance of
the system can be predicted accurately using the Gaussian sum
model that was derived. For practical considerations, where
larger equalizer filters are used, the Gaussian sum model can
be approximated reasonably well by using a Gaussian model
which then has the advantage of being much more efficient
computationally.
REFERENCES
[1] R. Iltis and L. Milstein, "An Approximate Statistical Analysis of the
Widrow LMS Algorithm with Application to Narrow-Band Interference
Rejection," IEEE Trans. Communications, vol.33, no.2, pp. 121- 130, Feb
1985.
[2] R. A. Iltis and S. H. Goldberg, "Joint Interference Rejection/Channel
Equalization in DS Spread-Spectrum Receivers using the CMA Equalizer
and Maximum-Likelihood Techniques," MILCOM 1987, vol.1, pp.0109-
0113, 19-22 Oct. 1987.
[3] M. E. Davis and L. B. Milstein, "Anti-jamming properties of a DS-CDMA
equalization filter," MILCOM 1993, vol. 3, pp. 1008-1012, 11-14 Oct
1993.
[4] A. J. Coulson, "Bit error rate performance of OFDM in narrowband
interference with excision filtering," IEEE Trans. Wireless
Communications, vol. 5, no. 9, pp. 2484-2492, September 2006.
[5] Y. Lee, P. Voltz, P. Pietraski, and R. Yang, "BER estimation for MIMO
HSDPA: Chip level Wiener equalizer and successive interference
cancellation," Systems, Applications and Technology Conference
(LISAT), 2011 IEEE Long Island , pp.1-5, 6-6 May 2011.
[6] S. Haykin, Adaptive Filter Theory, Prentice-Hall, NJ, 4th ed., 2002.
[7] A. Leon-Garcia, Probability, Statistics, and Random Processes for
Electrical Engineering, Pearson Prentice Hall, 3d ed., 2008.
[8] B. P. Lathi, Modern Digital and Analog Communication Systems, Oxford
University Press, 3d ed., 1998.
[9] Y. T. Su, F-B. Ueng, and L-D. Jeng, "Interference rejection and
equalization in band-limited channels," Sixth IEEE Intl. Symp. on
Personal, Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications, 1995. PIMRC'95.
'Wireless: Merging onto the Information Superhighway', vol. 3, pp.1277,
27-29 Sep 1995.

282
w
w
w
.
t
a
k
e
o
f
f
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
.
c
o
m
For Further Details-A Vinay 9030333433,0877-2261612 4