Loading [MathJax]/extensions/MathMenu.js
Efficient Optimal Linear Estimation for CPM: An Information Fusion Approach | IEEE Journals & Magazine | IEEE Xplore

Abstract:

The Internet of Things (IoT) has recently experienced considerable growth, enabling communication between a wide range of devices. Given the prevalence of mobile IoT devi...Show More

Abstract:

The Internet of Things (IoT) has recently experienced considerable growth, enabling communication between a wide range of devices. Given the prevalence of mobile IoT devices, optimizing hardware resources becomes crucial, requiring power and complexity reduction strategies. Continuous phase modulation (CPM) offers attractive features for IoT, such as spectral and power efficiency. However, many CPM receiver designs are computationally intensive, which limits their practicality for this kind of applications. This article presents a new efficient CPM receiver based on information fusion techniques that takes advantage of the inherent memory of CPM models. This proposal offers a family of biased and unbiased estimators for CPM with linear computational complexity, derived from a clear optimization objective based on a mean-squared error criterion. The proposed design is shown to be optimal under such criterion and explicit expressions for its error probability are provided. The error probability of the proposed design is shown to be approximately the same as the theoretical lower bound of the optimal receiver for binary phase shift keying (BPSK) for certain CPM models. Theoretical and simulation results confirm the benefits of this contribution, highlighting its near-optimal performance for specific schemes of Gaussian frequency-shift keying (GFSK). This holds particular significance due to the role of GFSK in Bluetooth low energy (BLE) wireless communication technologies, which contributes significantly to the advancement of mobile IoT devices.
Published in: IEEE Internet of Things Journal ( Volume: 11, Issue: 5, 01 March 2024)
Page(s): 8427 - 8439
Date of Publication: 28 September 2023

ISSN Information:

Funding Agency:

References is not available for this document.

I. Introduction

The Internet of Things (IoT) stands as a cutting-edge technology, enabling the connection of various devices for applications, such as automotive infotainment, medical healthcare, home automation, and machine-to-machine communications. Its primary objective is to enable seamless data interchange without the need for human intervention [1], [2]. Given the prevalence of mobile IoT devices, optimizing hardware resources becomes crucial, requiring power and complexity reduction strategies.

Select All
1.
J. Valencia-Velasco, R. Aldana-Lopez and O. Longoria-Gandara, "Alternative Viterbi detection metrics for GFSK receivers: A hardware reduction approach", Proc. IEEE 10th Latin-Amer. Conf. Commun. (LATINCOM), pp. 1-5, Nov. 2018.
2.
S. Chen, H. Xu, D. Liu, B. Hu and H. Wang, "A vision of IoT: Applications challenges and opportunities with China perspective", IEEE Internet Things J., vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 349-359, Aug. 2014.
3.
F. Xiong, Digital Modulation Techniques, Norwood, MA, USA:Artech House, Jan. 2006.
4.
Z. Pan, H. Wang, B. Zhang and D. Guo, "Low complexity adaptive detection of short CPM bursts for Internet of Things in 6G", Sensors, vol. 22, no. 21, pp. 8316, 2022.
5.
S. Li, X. Dang, G. Xu, X. Yu, C. Hao and J. Li, "Detection of downlink asynchronous noma with MSK-type signal", IEEE Commun. Lett., vol. 27, no. 5, pp. 1442-1446, May 2023.
6.
E. McCune, "Foundations of green communications", Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Commun. Workshop (ICCW), pp. 2744-2749, 2015.
7.
A. Linz and A. Hendrickson, "Efficient implementation of an I-Q GMSK modulator", IEEE Trans. Circuits Syst. II Analog Digit. Signal Process., vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 14-23, Jan. 1996.
8.
T. Svedek, M. Herceg and T. Matic, "A simple signal shaper for GMSK/GFSK and MSK modulator based on sigma-delta look-up table", Radioengineering, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 230-237, Jun. 2009.
9.
J. Valencia-Velasco, O. Longoria-Gandara, R. Aldana-Lopez and L. Pizano-Escalante, "Low-complexity maximum-likelihood detector for IoT BLE devices", IEEE Internet Things J., vol. 7, no. 6, pp. 4737-4745, Jun. 2020.
10.
W. Van Thillo, F. Horlin, J. Nsenga, V. Ramon, A. Bourdoux and R. Lauwereins, "Low-complexity linear frequency domain equalization for continuous phase modulation", IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 1435-1445, Mar. 2009.
11.
J. G. Proakis and M. Salehi, Digital Communications, San Diego, CA, USA:McGraw Hill, 2008.
12.
Z. Xi, J. Zhu and Y. Fu, "Low-complexity detection of binary CPM with small modulation index", IEEE Commun. Lett., vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 57-60, Jan. 2016.
13.
M. Kalkan, "Zero-crossing based demodulation of minimum shift keying", Turk. J. Electr. Eng. Comput. Sci., vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 20, 2003.
14.
T. Scholand and P. Jung, "Bluetooth receiver based on zero-crossing demodulation", Electron. Lett., vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 397-398, Feb. 2003.
15.
P. Laurent, "Exact and approximate construction of digital phase modulations by superposition of amplitude modulated pulses (AMP)", IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 150-160, Feb. 1986.
16.
R. H.-H. Yang, M.-T. Lee, C.-K. Lee and S.-J. Chern, "A novel class of continuous-phase modulation (CPM) with separable phase property", Proc. Int. Symp. Intell. Signal Process. Commun. Syst. (ISPACS), pp. 1-6, Dec. 2011.
17.
T. Nelson, E. Perrins and M. Rice, "Near pptimal common detection techniques for shaped offset QPSK and Feher’s QPSK", IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 56, no. 5, pp. 724-735, May 2008.
18.
C. Brown and P. J. Vigneron, "Complexity reduction for continuous phase modulation using basis functions", Proc. IEEE Mil. Commun. Conf., pp. 1-7, Oct. 2009.
19.
J.-W. Liang, B. Ng, J.-T. Chen and A. Paulraj, "GMSK linearization and structured channel estimate for GSM signals", Proc. Mil. Commun. Conf. (MILCOM), vol. 2, pp. 817-821, Nov. 1997.
20.
R. Aldana-Lopez, J. Valencia-Velasco, O. Longoria-Gandara and L. Pizano-Escalante, "Digital linear GFSK demodulator for IoT devices", IET Commun., vol. 12, no. 16, pp. 1997-2004, Sep. 2018.
21.
H.-A. Loeliger, "An introduction to factor graphs", IEEE Signal Process. Mag., vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 28-41, Jan. 2004.
22.
E. Biglieri, R. Calderbank, A. Constantinides, A. Goldsmith, A. Paulraj and H. V. Poor, MIMO Wireless Communications, Cambridge, U.K.:Cambridge Univ. Press, Jan. 2007.
23.
H. Wymeersch, Iterative Receiver Design, Cambridge, U.K.:Cambridge Univ. Press, Sep. 2007.
24.
M. Collotta, G. Pau, T. Talty and O. K. Tonguz, "Bluetooth 5: A concrete step forward toward the IoT", IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 56, no. 7, pp. 125-131, Jul. 2018.
25.
U. Mengali and M. Morelli, "Decomposition of M-ary CPM signals into PAM waveforms", IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 41, no. 5, pp. 1265-1275, Sep. 1995.
26.
J. G. Proakis and M. Salehi, Digital Communications, Boston, MA, USA:McGraw Hill, 2007.
27.
T. Hastie, R. Tibshirani and J. Friedman, The Elements of Statistical Learning, New York, NY, USA:Springer, 2001.
28.
The Bluetooth Core Specification V4.2, Kirkland, WA, USA, 2010.
29.
K. Kassan, H. Farès, D. C. Glattli and Y. Louët, "Performance vs. spectral properties for single-sideband continuous phase modulation", IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 69, no. 7, pp. 4402-4416, Jul. 2021.
30.
K. Kassan, H. Farès, D. C. Glattli and Y. Louët, "Simplified receivers for generic binary single side band CPM using PAM decomposition", IEEE Access, vol. 9, pp. 115962-115971, 2021.
Contact IEEE to Subscribe

References

References is not available for this document.