I.
INTRODUCTION
Interference Cancellation and
Signal Direction Finding with
Low Complexity
LANCE SCHMIEDER
DON MELLON
MOHAMMAD SAQUIB, Senior Member, IEEE
The University of Texas at Dallas
We propose a novel beamforming algorithm for a
three-element system that suppresses an interference signal while
still being able to measure a target’s interferometer phases.
Unlike most direction-of-arrival (DOA) estimation algorithms, our
algorithm does not use a grid search. Instead the estimates result
from a closed-form solution, a great advantage in time-sensitive
applications. The derivation of the algorithm is presented, and its
statistical performance is examined with simulations. Additionally,
our numerical results demonstrate that our algorithm is capable
of achieving more reliable DOA estimates than those found with
the well-known multiple signal classification (MUSIC) algorithm.
Finally, a radar signal processing example is presented.
Manuscript received April 25, 2008; revised November 17, 2008;
released for publication February 27, 2009.
IEEE Log No. T-AES/46/3/937959.
Refereeing of this contribution was handled by R. Adve.
Authors’ addresses: L. Schmieder, Mustang Technology Group,
400 W. Bethany Dr., Suite 100, Allen, TX 75013-3714, E-mail:
(lschmieder@mustangtechnology.com); D. Mellon, 136 County
Road 1998, Yantis, TX 75497; M. Saquib, Dept. of Electrical
Engineering, The University of Texas at Dallas, 2601 N. Floyd Rd.,
Richardson, TX 75083-0688.
0018-9251/10/$26.00 °
c 2010 IEEE
1052 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AEROSPACE AND ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS VOL. 46, NO. 3
A conventional technique of processing temporal
sensor array measurements for signal estimation,
interference suppression, or source direction and
spectrum estimation is beamforming [1—3]. It has been
exploited in numerous applications (e.g., radar, sonar,
wireless communications, speech processing, medical
imaging, radioastronomy).
The beamforming algorithm presented in this
paper is motivated by analyzing a low-cost radar
system that provides wide spatial coverage and very
rapid target detection as well as tracking. Designing
towards these goals, a reasonable and mostly generic
receiver would employ a three-antenna receiver.
Because the minimum number of sensing elements
needed to determine two-dimensional (2D) angles is
three, the system cost has been mostly minimized.
Furthermore, our antennas should emit very wide
beams to eliminate the need for scanning the beams
through space and consequently improving the speed
of our detections. We now consider the problem of
using our low-cost system to detect and estimate the
direction of arrival (DOA) of a desired signal in the
presence of a dominant interfering signal.
Considering existing algorithms, two approaches
are generally taken to estimate desired signal DOAs in
the presence of interference. The first is an application
of beamforming, and the second is a collection
of subspace-based and parametric methods. The
traditional beamforming approach is to spatially
filter the interference and then make DOA estimates
based on received power as a function of the beam’s
location. However, using amplitude variation as a
means for DOA estimation would be a poor choice
because of our wide beams; also as previously stated,
scanning is undesirable. These reasons lead us to seek
alternative methods.
Subspace-based and parametric methods estimate
the DOA of every incident signal (interfering and
desired) by using mathematical properties to estimate
the steering vector of each signal. These methods
include such algorithms as Capon [4], multiple signal
classification (MUSIC) [5], maximum-likelihood
(ML) estimation [6], propagation methods (PM) [7],
and estimation of signal parameters via rotational
invariance techniques (ESPRIT) [8]. Unfortunately,
Capon, MUSIC, ML, and PM estimation require a
grid search to estimate DOA. A grid search can be
time consuming and is thus undesirable given our
stated priority of designing a low-cost rapid-response
system. (The root-MUSIC algorithm does not require
a grid search, but it can only used with a uniform
linear array and hence is only be able to estimate
angles along a single dimension.) ESPRIT is capable
of yielding estimates from closed-form equations,
but with a three-element array, it can only be used
to estimate the DOA of a lone signal. If a powerful
JULY 2010
jamming signal is present, ESPRIT would not be
able to estimate the DOA of any additional desirable
signal. Thus, it is not usable in the problem we are
trying to solve [9].
Despite the stated disadvantages, MUSIC is the
existing algorithm that seems best suited for our
system. Since it is usable with our simple hardware
structure, MUSIC is more statistically efficient than
Capon and offers a much reduced computational
burden as compared with ML estimation [6]. Because
of its popularity in literature, an analytical and
numerical comparison of MUSIC and our algorithm
will be given later.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows.
In Section I, first, we give a full description of
our algorithm, starting with the system model and
continuing with a tabular list of algorithm steps.
Next, we proceed with a detailed description on our
methodology for interference cancellation, target
detection, and phase angle estimation. Afterwards, we
analytically identify the spatial scenarios of a jammer
and a target in which the proposed technique will
reliably estimate a target’s DOA. A similar analysis
of MUSIC is given that suggests the two algorithms
will exhibit the same spatial dependency. Next, in
Section III the statistical performance of the algorithm
is examined through a collection of simulations. In
Section IV, we present a brief radar signal processing
example to demonstrate how our proposed algorithm
might be used in practice. Finally, Section V contains
the conclusions of this work.
II. SYSTEM MODEL
Three antennas in an arbitrary geometry make up
our receiver structure. The received signal at the ith
element at time n, is denoted by xi (n) and is formed
from the coherent addition of the target signal ti (n),
the jammer signal ui (n), and the noise vi (n). Therefore,
xi (n) = ti (n) + ui (n) + vi (n), i = 1, 2, 3:
Assuming point sources and equal gains for the three
receivers, the target and interfering signal at each
sensor will be phased replicas [10]. We also assume
narrowband signals, which means that the relative
phases of the received signals will be constant across
the entire band. The target signals are modeled as
t2 (n) = t1 (n)ejμ , t3 (n) = t1 (n)ej±
where
t1 (n) = ®(n)ejÁ(n)
and the interfering signals are
u2 (n) = u1 (n)ej² , u3 (n) = u1 (n)ej´
where
u1 (n) = ¯(n)ej¸(n) :
SCHMIEDER ET AL.: INTERFERENCE CANCELLATION AND SIGNAL DIRECTION FINDING
TABLE I
Algorithm Overview
Step 1: Find beamforming weights that minimize the jammer’s
power.
Step 2: Apply threshold detection to the beamformer outputs
of each range-Doppler bin of interest.
Step 2a: If a target is detected, record its range and Doppler
and proceed to Step 3.
Step 2b: If no target is detected, start over with the next
coherent processing interval (CPI).
Step 3: Estimate relative phase information for each detected
target.
Step 4: Calculate DOAs from the phase information.
The variables ®(n) and Á(n) respectively denote
the amplitude and the time-varying phase of the target
at antenna 1, while μ and ± denote the relative phase
angles at antenna 2 and 3. In a similar manner, the
parameters ¯(n), ¸(n), ², and ´ denote the amplitude,
time-varying phase, and electrical phase angles of the
jamming signal. The noise, vi (n) is a white zero-mean
complex random variable with variance ¾ 2 and is
uncorrelated with vm (n) for i 6= m. All Greek letter
variables represent real numbers.
We now give an overview of our algorithm which
does not fit either of the paradigms introduced above,
i.e., we do not scan a narrow beam nor do we use a
parametric method to estimate the steering vectors
of all present source signals. Throughout the rest of
this paper, we refer to the desired signal as a target
signal because this approach has been motivated
from the signal processing needs of a radar system.
We have also chosen to use a noise jammer for the
interference source because of the ease at which one
can be simulated, but application need not be limited
to this case. The algorithm steps are enumerated in
Table I.
Before proceeding to the algorithm details,
we make some additional comments. In regards
to Step 3, in the weighted sum, the jammer’s
(1) power is negligible, but the target’s directional
phase information is distorted. For this reason
the phase information has to be recovered in a
novel manner. The recovery is accomplished by
arranging those sums in a phasor diagram and
exploiting the problem’s natural symmetry. At Step
4, the DOAs of multiple targets can be estimated,
sequentially, if those targets are resolvable in range
or Doppler. Our approach is philosophically similar
(2)
to [11] the Applebaum and Wasiewicz algorithm
for jammer suppression and target DOA estimation
(3) in monopulse systems. Like [11], instead of using
beamforming in the traditional fashion, to maximize
the signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio (SINR),
(4) beamforming is used to null a jamming signal.
Nulling the jammer enables a reduced-complexity
mathematical technique for estimating target
(5) signal parameters. Unlike [11], we employ phase
1053
interferometry and require one less receiver channel.
Adapting a beam based solely on information
about an interference signal is a common attribute
among processing techniques that attempt to reduce
computational complexity [12].
A. Interference Cancellation
If a weighted sum of the received signals is
formed, it is possible to choose non-zero, equal
magnitude weights that completely cancel, or null
the jammer signals. The importance of the weights
being non-zero is obvious because we still desire
to detect the target. The importance of the weights
being equal in magnitude is discussed later in the
paper. The time indices n representing sample times
have been dropped below. For convenience, we
introduce the paired received signal vector xi,m and
the corresponding weight vector wi,m for antenna i
and m:1
xi,m = [xi , xm ]> , i = 1, 2, 3 and i 6= m (6)
1
wi,m = p [1, ej!i,m ]> : (7)
2 1 Xt
To clarify our nomenclature, each entry in a “weight
vector” is referred topas a “weight.” Thus, in (7)
the first
p weight is 1= 2, and the second weight is
ej!i,m = 2. As mentioned above, these two weights are
readily seen to have equal magnitudes.
For an example of cancellation, we take the
summation of antennas 1 and 2, where r1,2 is the
output of the beamformer,
1 1
r1,2 = w>
1,2 x1,2 = p x1 + p x2 e
j!1,2
: (8)
2 2
Notice that if !1,2 = ¼ ¡ ², then u1 + u2 ej!1,2 = 0, and
the jammer has been completely canceled. Simplifying
we get
1 1
r1,2 = p (t1 + v1 ) + p (t2 + v2 )ej!1,2 : (9)
2 2
Effectively, ej!1,2 has advanced the phase of the signal
at antenna 2 so that the jammer signals add together
180± out of phase. Analogous weighted sums can
be formed between antennas 1 and 3 and between
antennas 2 and 3.
Estimating the Beamforming Weights: Many
techniques exist for estimating the weight vectors,
and we implement eigenvector weighting because it
was used with much success in [11]. The samples
used in estimating the weights are assumed to
contain no target signal of significant strength. If the
interference is from a noise jammer, these samples
1 Inthis work, the notation X> is used as the transpose of the matrix
X, and X‡ denotes the hermitian of the matrix X.
1054 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AEROSPACE AND ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS VOL. 46, NO. 3
can usually be gathered from range-Doppler bins
corresponding to the furthest ranges or the largest
Doppler frequencies. If the interference changes
its DOA as it changes range or Doppler, a sliding
window is more appropriate for sample selection
[13, 14].
Below, “training” samples at the ith antenna are
specified by si , where
si = ui + vi , i = 1, 2, 3 (10)
and pairing the samples from antennas i and m, where
again i 6= m, we define a 2 £ 1 vector
si,m = [si , sm ]> : (11)
For one weight pair, a 2 £ 2 cross-correlation
matrix is formed for the received signals of two
antennas. The cross-correlation matrix for si,m is
denoted by
Ri,m = Efsi,m s‡i,m g (12)
and the above ensemble average is estimated with the
average of Nt noisy snapshots by the calculation
N
R̂i,m = ski,m sk‡
i,m : (13)
Nt
k=1
It can be shown that the complex conjugate of the
eigenvector corresponding to the minimum eigenvalue
of Ri,m is the desired set of beamforming weights for
antennas i and m [15]. The conjugation is a result of
definitions in (7) and (9). If the jammer remains at a
constant angular location, as the limit of Nt goes to
infinity, the eigenvector weights will converge to a
set of optimum weights that completely eliminate the
jammer signal after processing, i.e.,
w> ¤ 2
i,m Ri,m wi,m = ¾ : (14)
However, we note that with finite Nt , the
eigenvector weights will have some amplitude error
as well as phase error. A simple modification is to
measure the relative phase between the elements
of the eigenvector conjugate and then reset the
magnitude of each element. This modification is
advantageous because of our system model, and the
underlying assumption of receiver calibration. Because
the jammer powers for any particular snapshot
are equal in magnitude at each antenna, the only
quantities that need to be estimated are the phases
!1,2 , !1,3 , and !2,3 .
For example, if eigenvalue decomposition results
in a vector as wi,m = [a, b]> , then !i,m is calculated as
!i,m = 6 a ¡ 6 b (15)
and the weighting vector that we use becomes
1
wi,m = p [1, ej!i,m ]> : (16)
2
JULY 2010
 For our three-antenna receiver, the process
of averaging jammer phase angles or performing
eigenvalue decomposition (EVD) only needs to be
carried out twice because any third weight vector can
be calculated from the first two. From (4) and (9), we
know that the optimal !1,2 = ¼ ¡ ², and the optimal
!1,3 = ¼ ¡ ´. It can also be shown that, in order to
cancel the jammer from the beamformer output of
antennas 2 and 3,
!2,3 = ¼ ¡ ´ + ²: (17)
Fig. 1. Vector diagram showing derivation of angle of r1,2
By combining the equations for each of the weight (i.e., 6 r1,2 ) in (24).
phase angles we arrive at the relationship
!2,3 = !1,3 ¡ !1,2 + ¼: (18) over any map region of interest. Using (19) an entire
“cleaned” range-Doppler map can be created from
B. Signal Detection values of p. An example on target detection is given
in Section IV.
After the training snapshots are collected and Depending on antenna geometry or system
the weights have been estimated, they are used to requirements, alternate definitions for a detection
search for a target signal within the jammer-dominated variable might be useful. One example would be to
received signal. Multiplying the weighting vectors use p = 13 (jr1,2 j2 + jr1,3 j2 + jr2,3 j2 ). Another possible
with their respective received signal vectors results detection criteria would be to use an m-of-n threshold
in the residue power detection variable detection on the three beamformer outputs, e.g.,
3 3 2-of-3 jri,m j2 should exceed the threshold to declare
1X > 1X a detection.
p= jw1,m x1,m j2 = jr1,m j2 : (19)
2 2
m=2 m=2

This particular definition of p was chosen in C. Phase Angle Estimation

anticipation of using the L-shaped array described in a
The DOA can be calculated from the difference in
later section.
target signal phase at the three antennas. Referring to
If no target signal is present, the equation for p
previous equations, we need to estimate μ and ±. By
can be simplified as
using (2), (3), and (9) and by assuming the jammer
3 ¯ ¯2
1 X ¯¯ 1 ¯
j!1,m ¯
signal is canceled and the noise negligible, we get a
p=
2 ¯ p2 (v1 + vm e )¯ set of three equations:
m=2
®
3 · ¸ r1,2 = p ejÁ (1 + ej(μ+!1,2 ) )
1X 1 2
= (v1 + vm ej!1,m )(v1 + vm e¡j!1,m )2 :
2 2 ® jÁ
m=2 r1,3 = p e (1 + ej(±+!1,3 ) ) (22)
(20) 2
Next, by taking the expectation of both sides, we find ®
r2,3 = p ejÁ (ejμ + ej(±+!2,3 ) ):
that 2
3 3
1X 1X 2 In the above set of equations we have four
Efpg = Efv12 + vm
2
g= 2¾ = ¾ 2 : (21)
4 4 unknowns ®, Á, μ, and ±. We can rewrite these
m=2 m=2
equations in phasor form using r1,2 as an example:
Therefore, if a target signal is not present in
®
the received signals and the weight vectors are jr1,2 j6 r1,2 = p [6 ejÁ + 6 ej(Á+μ+!1,2 ) ]: (23)
normalized, then the average residue power will be 2
equal to the average noise power in the channels. If Here we see the importance of equal magnitude
a target signal is present, then p will be larger and weights as mentioned in Section IIA. Because
can be used for detection purposes without having the components of the weight vector are of equal
to adjust constant false alarm rate (CFAR) settings. magnitude, r1,2 bisects the angle subtended by
How much larger p becomes depends on the original the target phasors shown in Fig. 1. The bisection
target signal power and on the spatial angle separation allows us to write an equation that only involves the
between the target and jammer signals. Weighted sums unknown phases:
in which the jammer has been canceled can be made
from groups or from individual range-Doppler cells 26 r1,2 = Á + (Á + μ + !1,2 ): (24)

SCHMIEDER ET AL.: INTERFERENCE CANCELLATION AND SIGNAL DIRECTION FINDING 1055

 From (24) we define variable '1 as r2,3 becomes small, the variances of both target phase
estimations grow.
'1 = 26 r1,2 ¡ !1,2 = μ + 2Á: (25)
Note that the quantity '1 is known, whereas the E. Analytical Comparison with MUSIC
quantities on the right-most side of the above equation
are unknowns. The final two weighted sum equations Above we stated that MUSIC is the existing
for r1,3 and r2,3 can also be reduced to relationships algorithm that seems most suitable for our target DOA
involving only the phase angles. These operations estimation scenario, for this reason, it is important
respectively yield and interesting to compare their performances.
Additionally, MUSIC has been shown for multiple
'2 = ± + 2Á (26) source cases to be asymptotically efficient when the
SNR of all sources tends towards infinity [16]. In [5],
'3 = μ + ± + 2Á: (27)
the estimates for azimuth and elevation are given as
Finally, using (25), (26), and (27), we obtain μ and the value of azimuth (AZ) and elevation (EL) that
± as maximizes the quantity in (32), where a is the steering
μ = '3 ¡ '2 , ± = '3 ¡ '1 : vector and EN is a matrix defined as having columns
made up of eigenvectors in the noise subspace:
Once values for μ and ± are found, it is
straightforward to obtain estimates for Á and ® if 1
Pmu (AZ, EL) = :
desired. a(AZ, EL)‡ EN E‡N a(AZ, EL)
(32)
D. Effects from the Angular Separation of Signals We now analyze (32) for our target and jammer
scenario, rewriting (2) and (4) in steering vector form
The DOA estimates will be reliable in a noisy
as
environment if the phase terms 6 ri,m are primarily
determined by the target signal and not by noise. t = t1 [1, ejμ , ej± ]> , u = u1 [1, ej² , ej´ ]> : (33)
Because the average noise is unchanged by the
beamformers, it is informative to look at how Matrix EN has only one column, and, by the proof
the beamformers affect target signal strength. provided in [5], will be orthogonal to t and u. An
Therefore if we again neglect noise, jr1,2 j is the gain equation for EN can then be found by taking the cross
experienced by the target signal in the beamformer product of the vectors. We derive this cross product
from antennas 1 and 2. Starting with (22) and using (u £ t) as
Euler’s identity and trigonometric identities, we can EN = C[e¡j² e¡j± ¡ e¡jμ e¡j´ , e¡j´ ¡ e¡j± , e¡jμ ¡ e¡j² ]>
write ¯ μ ¶¯
p ¯ μ + !1,2 ¯ (34)
jr1,2 j = 2® ¯¯cos ¯:
¯ (28)
2 where C is a constant. The ability of a grid search
Substituting !1,2 = ¼ ¡ ², we can rewrite this as to yield two distinct peaks and thus the DOA
¯ estimations for the jammer and the target depends on
p ¯ μ μ ¡ ² ¶¯¯ the magnitude of the entries of the vector EN . For a
jr1,2 j = 2® ¯¯sin ¯:
¯ (29) finite number of snapshots N and finite SNRs, small
2
entry magnitudes will manifest themselves in blurred
Similar to (29), we obtain the magnitudes of the peaks in the grid search, which means less reliable
outputs of the other two beamformers as estimates. After applying mathematical identities,
¯
p ¯ μ ± ¡ ´ ¶¯¯ those entry magnitudes are
jr1,3 j = 2® ¯¯sin ¯
¯ (30) ¯ μ ¶¯
2 ¯ ¡μ + ² + ± ¡ ´ ¯¯
¯ μ ¶¯ jEN(1,1) j = 2C ¯¯sin ¯
p ¯ ¡μ + ² + ± ¡ ´ ¯¯ 2
¯
jr2,3 j = 2® ¯sin
2 ¯: (31) ¯ μ
¯
¶¯
´ ¡ ± ¯¯
¯
jEN(2,1) j = 2C ¯sin (35)
2 ¯
Inspection of the above equations show that as
the jammer’s ² phase angle approaches the target’s ¯ μ ¶¯
¯ μ ¡ ² ¯¯
¯
jEN(3,1) j = 2C ¯sin
μ phase angle, the magnitude of r1,2 goes to zero.
2 ¯:
As this happens, the phase variable '1 becomes
dominated by noise and the variance of ± estimation Remarkably, other than an arbitrary scaling factor,
grows. At the limit when μ = ², ± cannot be estimated the magnitude of the EN entries are equivalent to our
at all. Similarly, as the jammer’s ´ phase angle algorithm’s beamformer gains that are listed in (29),
approaches the target’s ± phase angle, the variance (30), and (31). Whenever an entry of EN is zero, the
of the μ estimation grows. When the magnitude of grid search will not yield unique peaks. We see that

1056 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AEROSPACE AND ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS VOL. 46, NO. 3 JULY 2010
this occurs by inspecting (32). If an entry of EN is
zero, any particular inner product with that vector can
be achieved by an infinite number of steering vectors.
Therefore, even at MUSIC’s asymptotic limit, if
μ = ², an EL estimate cannot be made; if ± = ´, an AZ
estimate cannot be made; and if ¡μ + ² + ± ¡ ´ = 0,
neither an AZ nor an EL estimate can be made.
From the above analysis, one would expect the
proposed algorithm and MUSIC to behave similarly
for large numbers of snapshots. Unfortunately, it
is generally very difficult to analytically trace the
performance of a DOA estimation algorithm for
multi-source signal cases [10, 16, 17]. In order to
compare the performance of our proposed algorithm
and MUSIC as a function of snapshots, we have
instead conducted a simulation which is described in
Section III.
It is difficult to directly compare the computational
complexity of our algorithm and MUSIC because
of the various engineering decisions that must be
made before applying either. Consequently, from
our algorithm we omit from this comparison the
computations required to estimate the beamforming
weights, and from MUSIC, we omit the computations
required to estimate the 3 £ 3 cross-correlation
matrix, the subsequent EVD, and the selection
of the correct Pmu peak. In other words, for our
algorithm we consider here only the computations
required in calculating the beamformer outputs and
the phase angle estimation. For MUSIC we consider
only the grid search of (32). In the description
that follows the multiplication of two complex
numbers involves four “real multiplications,” and
the addition of two complex numbers two “real
additions.” Divisions are counted as multiplications,
and subtractions are counted as additions. We
assume that measuring the phase angle of a
complex number can be done inexpensively
through the use of a look-up table and that the
complexity involved in multiplying a number by 2
is negligible.
Averaging our phase angle estimates from
N jammer-plus-target-plus-noise snapshots, our
algorithm requires 24N + 1 real multiplications,
12N ¡ 1 real additions. For MUSIC, each grid point
requires 16 real multiplications and 4 real additions.
We now compare the complexity of the phase angle
estimation in our algorithm with the complexity of
a MUSIC grid search in an example. If we use a
typical N value of 5, our algorithm requires 121
real multiplications and 59 real additions. For the
MUSIC grid search we use points with 1± of precision
from ¡50± to 50± AZ and ¡50± to 50± EL. This
example grid has 10,201 points, resulting in a total of
163,216 real multiplications and 40,804 real additions.
Therefore, even though we limited the search span to
be much smaller than that of a full hemisphere and
used a coarse step size of 1± , MUSIC’s search in this
SCHMIEDER ET AL.: INTERFERENCE CANCELLATION AND SIGNAL DIRECTION FINDING
Fig. 2. Array geometry used in simulations.
case is more complex than our phase angle estimation
method by a factor of 1,348.
F. Application to an L-Shaped Array
Although our algorithm can be applied to general
array shapes, to further analyze its properties we now
consider a highly utilized array shape, the L-shaped
array. The L-shaped array is popular because it can be
used to estimate DOA angles in two dimensions. Also,
AZ and EL angles can be defined such that spatial
angle only depends on a single electrical phase angle.
Here we designate the relative signal phases at sensor
1 and 2 to measure AZ, and the relative signal phases
at sensor 1 and 3 to measure EL, i.e.,
μ ¶ μ ¶
μ ±
AZ = arcsin , EL = arcsin (36)
¼ ¼
where the distance from antennas 1 to 2 and from 1
to 3 is a half-wavelength. Thus, antenna 1 is at the
corner of the L-shape and the point 0± AZ and 0± EL
corresponds to the boresight of the receiver array. The
array structure is depicted in Fig. 2.
With a half-wavelength spacing and traditional
interferometry, relative signal phases would measure
between §¼. However, when using the proposed
algorithm, μ and ± will not fall within this range in
general. Therefore, before applying (36), μ and ± must
first be appropriately unwrapped.
III. NUMERICAL RESULTS
Now, we present a set of numerical results which
are obtained from simulations. All of the simulations
were performed with the L-shaped array described
above. First, the algorithm’s statistical performance
for estimating target DOA is compared with the
baseline interferometer performance when only
a target signal is present, i.e., no jamming. Next,
we revisit the issue of jammer-to-target angular
separation and demonstrate how the separation can
affect performance. Last, our algorithm’s performance
is compared with that of the well-known MUSIC
algorithm.
A. Simulation 1
The target was placed at 0± AZ, 0± EL. The
jammer signal, simulated as a white noise signal,
was placed at 22± AZ, 55± EL. The jammer-to-noise
1057
 Fig. 3. Estimation variances for simulation 1. Fig. 4. Average jri,m j=® for simulation 2.

ratio (JNR) was set to 40 dB, and 20 snapshots were

used to estimate the three cross-correlation matrices.
After canceling weights were found, the JNR was
kept at 40 dB, and a single snapshot was taken that
contained jammer-plus-target-plus-noise samples.
The simulation was carried out 5000 times for target
SNR values ranging from 10 to 30 dB. The resulting
DOA estimations were unbiased, and their variances
are plotted in Fig. 3. On the same set of axes, the
performance of traditional interferometry is plotted for
the case when there is no jammer. With no jammer,
using traditional interferometry, the AZ estimation
performs identically to the EL estimation because
the target is at boresight. For all the estimates, the
variance estimates decrease as the SNR increases.
The EL estimation performance is affected more Fig. 5. Estimation variances for simulation 2.
adversely by the jammer cancelation procedure
because jr1,2 j is smaller than jr1,3 j. The cost of the experiment was performed 5000 times so that
jammer cancellation on the target DOA estimations average performances could be studied. As expected,
can be thought of in terms of additional SNR required regardless of the jammer’s position, each of the
to achieve the same performance. With the parameter DOA estimations remained unbiased. However,
values simulated here, the AZ estimation required the estimation variances show a strong dependence
approximately 1 additional dB, and the EL estimation on the separation angles. In Fig. 4 the average
required approximately 5 additional dB to achieve magnitude of the three beamformer outputs, scaled
the target-only performance. For low-cost radar by 1=®, are plotted as a function of jammer-to-target
systems, typical single bin detection threshold levels separation in AZ. The jr1,3 j gain, which is a function
range from 10 to 15 dB above the noise floor. Hence, of jammer-to-target EL separation is constant for
the plot shows that the proposed algorithm follows this set of simulation experiments. Fig. 5 shows the
the same SNR performance trends as traditional resulting DOA estimation variances. As predicted in
interferometry, regardless of whether that SNR our analysis, the target’s EL estimate becomes poor
happens to be low or high. when the AZ separation is small, and both estimates
are poor, around 30± of separation when jr2,3 j becomes
B. Simulation 2 small in magnitude.

A target signal was simulated with an SNR of C. Simulation 3

25 dB and was again placed at 0± AZ, 0± EL. Five
snapshots that contained target signal were used to
make the final angle estimates. The jammer’s EL
angle was set to 30± while its AZ angle is swept
through space. As was done in Simulation 1, each
In this simulation, we compare the performance
of the proposed algorithm and MUSIC as a function
of snapshots N. The target was moved to 7± AZ,
¡25± EL with an SNR of 20 dB. The jammer

1058 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AEROSPACE AND ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS VOL. 46, NO. 3 JULY 2010
 Fig. 6. Estimation variances for simulation 3.
signal was placed at 46± AZ, 15± EL with a JNR of
50 dB. Twenty snapshots were utilized to estimate
the jammer covariance matrices and the canceling
weights. The target’s DOA was then estimated using
target-plus-jammer-plus-noise snapshots, while the
number of these snapshots was varied from 1 to 15.
For the cases when the number of snapshots was
greater than 1, we averaged the estimates for the
relative phases, μ and ±, after first properly wrapping
those values into the §¼ range. Then the averages
for μ and ± were used to calculate AZ and EL.
The same weighting was used for each snapshot of
that particular simulation iteration. The simulation
was carried out 1000 times, and the resulting DOA
estimation variances are plotted in Fig. 6. An
automatic minimization routine was used to obtain
the MUSIC estimates instead of a grid search so that
the grid step size would not affect the simulation’s
statistics. Our algorithm outperforms MUSIC when
a small number of snapshots containing the target
signal are available. Furthermore, MUSIC cannot be
used with only a single snapshot. As expected, the
performance of the two algorithms begins to converge
at larger numbers of snapshots.
D. Simulation 4
In the analysis of the preceding section, we
showed that the relative AZ and EL of the jammer
and target incident signals affects the DOA estimation
performance of MUSIC in a similar way to how it
affects our algorithm. Although performance trends
could be identified, a full analytical description
of MUSIC’s performance cannot be found [10].
As a result, it seems useful to further the MUSIC
comparison with another simulation. The target is
kept at 7± AZ, ¡25± EL with an SNR of 20 dB.
The jammer signal was simulated with a constant
15± EL, while its AZ was swept across space.
Twenty snapshots of the jammer at 50 dB JNR were
SCHMIEDER ET AL.: INTERFERENCE CANCELLATION AND SIGNAL DIRECTION FINDING
Fig. 7. Estimation variances for simulation 4.
again used to estimate the beamforming weights.
In Simulation 3, 15 target-plus-jammer-plus-noise
snapshots resulted in nearly equivalent average
performance of the two algorithms, so 15 snapshots
were used here as well. The estimation variances
are plotted in Fig. 7 after 1000 iterations. The
performance of the two algorithms is quite similar.
For the scenarios where our algorithm is relatively less
reliable, MUSIC is also. The results of Simulation 3
and Simulation 4 suggest that, while being a powerful
algorithm and useful for complex multi-signal
scenarios, MUSIC’s computational complexity is
unwarranted in the problem on which we are focused.
IV. RADAR EXAMPLE
For this example, a CW radar is simulated with
a 10 GHz center frequency. The radar samples 256
times per CPI at a rate of 51.2 kHz, which results in a
CPI of 5 ms. CW was chosen for convenience, but all
of the below steps could be used with a pulse-Doppler
system. Using standard equations from [18], we find
that the maximum unambiguous range-rate, or relative
velocity, is 384 m/s, and the range-rate resolution is
3 m/s.
Reflections from two targets are simulated. The
first target is closing at rate of 121 m/s (or ¡121 m/s)
from the direction of ¡51± AZ and 8± EL, and the
second target is opening at a rate of 86 m/s (or
+86 m/s) from the direction of 19± AZ and ¡30± EL.
White Gaussian noise (WGN), uncorrelated from
antenna to antenna, is added to the received signal
such that the noise floor will correspond to 0 dB on
the generated radar maps. With a JNR of 40 dB, the
jamming signal is simulated at a location of 46± AZ
and 37± EL relative to the receiver. The resulting
map from a single CPI is shown after Doppler
processing in Fig. 8, and we notice that without
further work, only the jamming signal can be seen.
The target signals we are trying to detect and track are
1059
 Fig. 8. Resultant Doppler data from one CPI. Fig. 10. Beamformer output jr1,2 j=® as function of signal AZ.

Fig. 9. Target detections after jammer cancellation. Fig. 11. Beamformer output jr1,3 j=® as function of signal EL.

completely hidden, but are plotted on the same axis

for reference. We now apply our proposed algorithm.
Step 1 The beamforming weights are
estimated from a set of snapshots that contain only
jammer-plus-noise information. Let us assume that
no targets of interest are expected to reach velocities
up to 300 m/s. Using snapshots from bins less than
¡300 m/s and greater than 300 m/s, 56 training
snapshots are thus provided.
The eigenvalues that are calculated as a byproduct
of our weight estimation are also useful. The
differences in the minimum eigenvalues and maximum
eigenvalues of this example are approximately 43 dB,
which is consistent with the JNR defined above. The
extra 3 dB results from the possibility that, if desired,
the jamming signal could be added perfectly in phase Fig. 12. Beamformer output jr2,3 j=® as function of signal
by the beamformer, thereby doubling its power. This AZ and EL.
spread in eigenvalues can be used by a radar analyst
to determine that the receiver is, in fact, being jammed jammer has been cancelled. For each range-rate bin
and to predict that roughly 40 dB of suppression can from ¡300 m/s to 300 m/s, the detection variable p
be expected from applying the beamforming weights. is calculated as in (19), converted to dB scale, and
Step 2 After the beamforming weights are found, replotted in Fig. 9. A detection threshold of 15 dB
they are used to create a new radar map where the above the noise floor is chosen, resulting in detections

1060 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AEROSPACE AND ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS VOL. 46, NO. 3 JULY 2010
 well even when the number of target-containing
snapshots available is small. This property makes it
attractive for use in post-Doppler processing where it
is common for a target signal to straddle only a few
range-Doppler bins. The DOAs of multiple targets
can be estimated from one CPI as long as those target
signals are resolvable in range or Doppler.

REFERENCES

[1] Krim, H. and Viberg, M.

[2]
Fig. 13. Detection variable, p, as a function of signal [3]
AZ and EL.
in seven bins. As seen in the figure, those detections
can be easily associated into two targets. Taking the [4]
two peak detections as the target relative velocities,
target 1 is closing at approximately 120 m/s and target
2 is opening at 87 m/s. Both estimated values are [5]
within the range-rate resolution of our system.
The values for jri,m j=® are plotted in Figs. 10—12.
The plots are generated from (29), (30), and (31). [6]
Whereas the jammer’s relative phase angles ² and ´
are held constant based on its AZ and EL defined
above, the target’s relative phase angles μ and ± are
swept from ¼ to ¡¼. Then for viewing purposes, the
[7]
relative phase angles are mapped to AZ and EL. To
add clarity, the angular locations of the jammer, target
1 and target 2 are marked on the curves (or surface
for Fig. 12) by the terms J, T1 , and T2 , respectively.
By design of the beamformers, the jammer is located
[8]
in the nulls of the plots. The detection beam shown in
Fig. 13 is obtained from averaging jr1,2 j=® and jr1,3 j=®
according to (19).
Step 3 Because targets have been detected,
we now wish to estimate the target signals’ DOA. [9]
From bins where detections were made, the complex
quantities r1,2 , r1,3 , and r2,3 are used as inputs into [10]
(25), (26), and (36).
Step 4 For this simulation iteration, the DOA of
target 1 is estimated at ¡50:4± AZ and 8:2± EL, and
[11]
target 2 is estimated at 17:8± AZ and ¡30:1± EL. Both
of these estimates are close to the true values.
[12]
V. CONCLUSIONS
While in the presence of a dominant interference
source, our proposed algorithm yields unbiased
target DOA estimates from a low-cost, three-element
receiver. We also mathematically identified the [13]
spatial scenarios where those estimates will have low
variances. Unlike most DOA estimation methods, our
estimates are found from closed-form expressions.
In contrast to MUSIC, our algorithm performs
Two decades of array signal processing research: The
parametric approach.
IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, 13 (July 1996), 67—94.
Van Veen, B. D. and Buckley, K. M.
Beamforming: A versatile approach to spatial filtering.
IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, 5 (Apr. 1988), 4—24.
Van Trees, H. L.
Optimal Array Processing (Detection, Estimation, and
Modulation Theory, Part IV).
New York: Wiley-Interscience, 2002.
Capon, J.
High resolution frequency-wavenumber spectrum
analysis.
Proceedings of the IEEE, 57, 8 (Aug. 1969), 1408—1418.
Schmidt, R. O.
Multiple emitter location and signal parameter estimation.
IEEE Transactions on Antennas Propagation, AP-34, 3
(Mar. 1986), 276—280.
Stoica, P. and Sharman, K. C.
Maximum likelihood methods for direction-of-arrival
estimation.
IEEE Transactions on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal
Processing, 38, 7 (July 1990), 1132—1143.
Marcos, S. and Benidir, M.
On a high resolution array processing method non-based
on the Eigenanalysis approach.
In Proceedings of the International Conference on
Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, vol. 5, Apr. 3—6,
1990, 2955—2958.
Roy, R. and Kailath, T.
Esprit–estimation of signal parameters via rotational
invariance techniques.
IEEE Transactions on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal
Processing, 37, 7 (July 1989).
Stoica, P. and Moses, R.
Introduction to Spectral Analysis.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1997.
Gazzah, H. and Marcos, S.
Cramer-Rao bounds for antenna array design.
IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, 54, 1 (Apr.
2006), 336—344.
Applebaum, S. and Wasiewicz, R.
Main beam jammer cancellation for monopulse sensors.
Final Technical Report, DTIC RADC-TR-86-267, Dec.
1984.
Himed, B. and Melvin, W. L.
Analyzing space-time adaptive processors using measured
data.
In Proceedings of the Thirty-First Asilomar Conference on
Signals, Systems & Computers, vol. 1, Nov. 2—5, 1998,
930—935.
Borsari, G. and Steinhardt, A. O.
Cost-efficient training strategies for space-time adaptive
processing.
In Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth Asilomar Conference
on Signals, Systems & Computers, vol. 1, Oct. 30—Nov. 2,
1995, 650—654.

SCHMIEDER ET AL.: INTERFERENCE CANCELLATION AND SIGNAL DIRECTION FINDING 1061

[14] Rabideau, D. J. [17] Hua, Y. and Sarkar, T.
Clutter and jammer multipath cancellation in airborne A note on the Cramer-Rao bound for 2-d direction
adaptive radar. finding based on 2-d array.
IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, 39 (May 1991),
36, 2 (Apr. 2000), 565—583. 1215—1218.
[15] Moon, T. K. and Stirling, W. C. [18] Skolnik, M. I.
Mathematical Methods and Algorithms for Signal Introduction to RADAR Systems (3rd ed.).
Processing. Columbus, OH: McGraw-Hill, 2001.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 2000.
[16] Porat, B. and Friedlander, B.
Analysis of the asymptotic relative efficiency of the music
algorithm.
IEEE Transactions on Acoustics, Speech, Signal Processing,
36, 4 (Apr. 1988), 532—544.

1062 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON AEROSPACE AND ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS VOL. 46, NO. 3 JULY 2010
 Lance Schmieder received a B.S.E.E. from the University of Tennessee in
Knoxville in 2005 and was recognized as a Top Collegiate Scholar for the
College of Engineering. In 2008, he completed his M.S.E.E. at the University of
Texas at Dallas (UTD).
He was a Jonsson Fellowship recipient at UTD and a researcher in the
Wireless Communications Research Laboratory. Currently, he is an analyst with
the Mustang Technology Group in Allen, TX, where his primary duties involve
signal processing, system simulation, and algorithm development.
Mr. Schmieder is a member of the Tau Beta Pi and Eta Kappa Nu honor
societies.

Donald Mellon received an advanced degree is in solid state physics from Iowa
State University in 1970.
He is currently an independent contractor supporting radar development
programs at Mustang Technology Group in Allen, TX. Dr. Mellon has over
30 years experience as an analyst and systems engineer on advanced radar
and communication systems obtained primarily in Texas Instrument’s Defense
Electronics organization.

Mohammad Saquib (SM’09) received the B.Sc. degree (1991) in electrical

and electronics engineering from Bangladesh University of Engineering &
Technology, Bangladesh. He received the M.S. (1995) and the Ph.D. (1998)
degrees in electrical engineering from Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ,
where he was a graduate research assistant in the Wireless Information Networks
Laboratory (WINLAB).
He worked as a system analyst (1991—1992) at the Energy Research
Corporation, Danbury, CT. From 1998 to 1999, he was with the MIT Lincoln
Laboratory, Lexington, MA, as a member of the technical staff. In January 1999,
he joined the Electrical and Computer Engineering Department at Louisiana
State University, where he was the Donald Ceil & Elaine T. Delaune Endowed
Assistant Professor. Since July 2000, he has been with the Electrical Engineering
Department at the University of Texas at Dallas, where presently he is an
associate professor. His research interests include various aspects of wireless
data transmission including system modeling and performance, signal processing,
and radio resource management, with emphasis on open-access techniques for
spectrum sharing. His research interests also include designing signal processing
techniques for low-cost radar and medical applications.
Professor Saquib served on the editorial board of the IEEE Transactions on
Wireless Communications from 2004—2009 and that of the IEEE Communications
Letters from 2002—2008. He received the Best Teaching Award “for excellence
in teaching Electrical Engineering and Telecommunications Classes” from the
Dean of the School of Engineering, the University of Texas at Dallas, 2002—2003.
He was a corecipient of the best Paper Award in International Test Synthesis
Workshop (ITSW), 2007, for the paper “A Robust Interconnect Mechanism for
Nanometer VLSI.” He coauthored the paper “Signal Direction Finding with Low
Complexity” which received the best student paper award in IEEE International
Waveform Diversity and Design Conference, 2009.

SCHMIEDER ET AL.: INTERFERENCE CANCELLATION AND SIGNAL DIRECTION FINDING 1063