Closed-Form Blind Channel Estimation for
Orthogonally Coded MIMO-OFDM Systems: An
Algorithm and Uniqueness Study
Nima Sarmadi, Marius Pesavento, and Alex B. Gershman
Communication Systems Group, Technische Universitat Darmstadt
Merckstrasse 25, 64283 Darmstadt, Germany
Email: nima.sarmadi.marius.pesavento.gershman@nt.tu-darmstadt.de
Abstract-In this paper, a new blind channel estimator
for multiple-input mUltiple-output orthogonal frequency-division
multiplexing (MIMO-OFDM) systems is proposed. Based on the
properties of the underlying orthogonal space-time block code
(OSTBC), a novel subspace model is devised. The proposed tech­
nique consists in a closed-form approach in which the channels
are estimated from the principal eigenvector of an extended sam­
ple covariance matrix of the received data. It is capable to take
advantage of the finite delay spread assumption of the channel
to estimate a lower number of channel parameters in the time
rather than in the frequency domain. The coherent processing
across all the subcarriers not only yields a considerable noise
reduction and improved estimation accuracy, but also guarantees
uniqueness of the channel estimates under certain conditions and
offers a substantially reduced computational complexity.
Index Terms-MIMO-OFDM systems, blind channel estima­
tion, OSTBCs, uniqueness conditions
I. INTRODUCTION
In current 3G and 4G cellular communications standards as
LTE and WIMAX, MIMO space-time coding teclmiques are
efficiently combined with OFDM schemes [1]. It is known that
the performance of MIMO-OFDM systems critically depend
on the quality of the channel state information available at
the receiver. Conventional training approaches that incur a
penalty in terms of bandwidth efficiency are used for channel
estimation. However, a recent trend is to estimate the channel
using spectrally efficient blind methods [2]-[8]. Several blind
estimation teclmiques have been proposed for flat fading
channels [2]-[4], that, in a subcarrier-wise manner, can be
straightforwardly extended to the application in MIMO-OFDM
systems. However, using such teclmiques does not employ
coherent processing across the subcarriers and may result
in a high computational complexity for large numbers of
subcarriers. Moreover, all of these teclmiques require relatively
long data records which makes them inapplicable in fast
fading scenarios. In the case that only short data records
are available at the receiver side and OSTBCs are used, the
techniques in [5]-[8] can be applied for blind symbol detect
and/or channel estimation. The drawbacks of the approach of
[5] are that it is only applicable to the case of BPSK and
QPSK modulations and that it requires repetition for each
new block of received OSTBC-OFDM data. Moreover, it may
suffer from a high computational complexity when the symbol
vector size is large. The approaches [6]-[8] exploit the inter-
978-1-61284-074-11111$26.00 ©2011 IEEE
subcarrier dependency of the channel frequency responses
which reduces the number of parameters to be estimated.
However, the approach of [6] is based on convex optimization
and amounts to solving a semidefinite program (SDP). Hence,
its computational cost may be rather high. The approaches
proposed in [7] and [8] use relaxation to convert the originally
non-convex channel estimation problem into a simple eigen­
value problem. The latter approaches generally yield biased
channel estimates for the finite sample case and conditions
under which unique channel estimates are obtained have not
been provided.
In this paper, we propose a new blind channel estimator
for orthogonally coded MIMO-OFDM systems. The main
idea of our approach is to exploit the structure of the un­
derlying OSTBC in each subcarrier to virtually increase the
number of available snapshots and form a covariance matrix
for each subcarrier that exhibits a rank-one signal subspace
property. Based on this subspace model, a computationally
simple estimation scheme similar to that of [7] and [8] is
proposed in which the channel estimates are obtained from the
solution of simple eigenproblem. Unlike the subcarrier-wise
channel estimation techniques of [2]-[4], our approach enjoys
a coherent processing across all the subcarriers to estimate
the channel. Assuming a specific coherence bandwidth of the
frequency selective fading channel, which corresponds to a
given delay spread, we introduce a compact parameterization
in time domain. This reduces the dimension of the parameter
estimation problem as compared to the problem in the fre­
quency domain. Associated with this reduction is an inherent
denoising effect and a lower computation complexity in the
proposed scheme. The benefit of our method compared to
the methods of [7] and [8] is that the involved coherent
combination of the subcarriers retains the desired subspace
properties of the subcarrier covariance model. Provided that
the delay spread does not exceed a specific identifiability
threshold, this guarantees that the true channel is given by
the unique principal eigenvector of the extended covariance
matrix of the received data. In contrast to the teclmique of [5],
the proposed method is independent of the transmitted signal
constellation and applicable to more than one data block.
II. BACKGROUND
The input-output relationship for a multicarrier MIMO sys­
tem with No subcarriers, N transmit and M receive antennas
in the frequency domain can be expressed as [9] with gl � G l E jR2MNXl l = O, ... , L, hi � Hi E
jR2MNXl i = O ... No ,
and:F � ,;NO(F®IMN) E
-1,
Yi(p) = Xi(p)Hi + Vi(p), i = 0, ... , No (1)
-1 ,
jR2MNNox2MNNo ,
. Consider that the p-th block of data
where i and P stand for the subcarrier and data block indices, which contains K complex information symbols Si(P) =
respectively, YiO E CT xM is the matrix of the received data [Sil(p),. . . ,SiK(p)V is transmitted on the ith subcarrier in
symbols, XiO E CT xN is the code matrix of the transmitted T consecutive OFDM symbols. We assume that according to
data with the code length T, Hi E CNxM is the MIMO the block fading model, the channel remains invariant over T
flat block-fading channel matrix and ViO E CT xM is the symbols intervals. Let
matrix containing the receiver noise. The noise is assumed to
be spatially and temporally white complex Gaussian with the Xi(p) � X(Si(P))
variance (12. It is assumed that due to the proper choice of the K
cyclic prefix length, the inter-block interference is omitted. L (CkRe{ Sik(P)} + Ck+Klm{ Sik(P)}) (9)
The time domain input-output relationship corresponding to k= l
(1) can be written as [9]
L where { CkH� l are the so-called OSTBC basis matrices that
are known at the receiver and Xi(p) is an identifiable OSTBC
Z(n) = L Y(n l )G l + E(n)
- (2)
matrix [10]. Then, we can rewrite (1) as [2]
1=0

where L+ represents the number of efficient channel taps and

1 Yi(P) = A(hi)Si(P) + Vi(P), i = 0, ... , No -1 (10)
Z(n), Y(n), G l and E(n) are the time domain counterparts
of Yi(p), Xi(p), Hi and Vi(p), respectively. The channel where Yi(P) � Yi(p), Vi(P) � Vi(p), and A(hi) �
frequency and impulse response matrices in (1) and (2) are [al(hi),. . . ,a2 K(hi)] = [C1Hi,. . . ,"C;KHJ Note that, in
related through [9] OSTBCs the columns of A(hi) are orthogonal by construction
regardless of actual channel vectors hi and that [2]
Hi = t Glexp (-j:' li) 0
(3)
(11)
1=0

where j � A. Let us consider the No-point normalized where 11· 11 is the 2-norm of a vector. As A(hi) is linear in hi,
Discrete Fourier Transform (DFT) matrix F E CNoxNo whose there exists a unique set of matrices { �kH� 1 E jR2MT x2MN
(k, l)th element is equal to such that [8]

[F]k,l =
1
,;NO
exp (-J27f (k-1)(l-1) )
.

No
.
where
Then, we have
(4)
-Im(IM ® Ck) . (13) ]
Re(IM ® Ck)
where G' � [G0T,···, GL
-
T JT E If"'NoNxM
T "'" ONxM
T' ONxM lL- ,
H' � [Hir, ...,H f E NoNxM ONxM is the N M We remark that the matrices { �d�� l are OSTBC-specific and
�o-l C , x
thus, known at the receiver. From the orthogonality property
matrix of all zeros, Ip is the P x P identity matrix, ® stands
(11) it can be proved that [11]
for the Kronecker matrix product, and OT is the transpose.
In order to convert the complex-valued signal model into an if l = k
equivalent real-valued one, let us define the underline and (14)
overline operators which applied to a complex-valued matrix
if l -=I- k
B yield the respective real-valued matrices as [6]
III. BLIND CHANNEL ESTIMATION
B � Re{ B}® [� �] + Im{ B}® [��1 (5)
The idea proposed in this paper is to exploit the specific
structure of the OSTBCs to create a set of 2K artificial
B � [ vec{ Re(B)V, vec{ Im(B)V f , (6)
snapshots from which the subcarrier covariance matrices can
where Re(·) and Im(·) denote the real and imaginary parts be estimated. This is of particular importance if the number
and vec{ ·} is the vectorization operator that stacks all columns of available snapshots P is low as, for example, in fast fading
of a matrix on the top of each other. Using (4)-(6), we can channel scenarios. In this case the subspace estimates are
establish the following relationship among the real-valued known to severely degrade in performance. Making use of
channel parameters in the frequency and time domains: [6] (14) along with the relations in (10) and (12), we define the

hI I7\T
= yNo (F®IMN) g =:Fg
- I I
(7)
2K artificial snapshots

where h' � [hir, ...,h�o-lf E jR2MNNoxl and

g = [gO,·
I l:.
T OT2MNxl"'"
T .. ,gL, OT2MNxl] T (8)
where located. Let us define the extended overall covariance matrix
X' as
Xo

A2 K(hi)� <prKA(hi) [<prK<plhi'<prK<P2 hi'··· ,hi] .
=
(16)
Note from (16) that the signal component hi is contained
in all virtual snapshots of (15). Further, taking into ac­
count the skew-symmetry property in (14), this signal com­
ponent is orthogonal to t�e remaining signal components
in each of the matrices Ak(hi) defined in (16). Hence,
hi 1- <pI<Plhi for k i=- t. To show the latter statement
consider
X'�
02 MN 02 MN XNO-l
A=ax(XNo-,)
(21)
where 02 M N denotes the 2M N x 2M N matrix containing
only zero entries. Due to the normalization of the individual
subcarrier covariance matrices by the principal eigenvalues and
from the block diagonal structure of X', we obtain that the No
largest eigenvalues of X' are all identical and equal to one.
Moreover, it can be readily verified that the respective principal
eigenvectors can be, e.g., represented as:

h;<pI<Plhi h;<Pf<Pkhi -hi <pI<PI hi 0, (17)

= = =
Uo
for k i=- t. Next, we define the scaled sample covariance matrix
of the ith subcarrier obtained from the 2K virtual snapshots
in (15) which after applying the expectation operator can be
expressed as
2K
Xi � E{ L Yi(k ,p)Yi(k ,pf }
k=l
2K T
]
-
L.,. Ak(hi)E{ Si(P)SiT (p)}Ak(hi)T +Ka 2 I2MN
�- [OIX2MN, ...,Olx2MN,U�o_I]
k=l hT T
where E{ ·} stands for the expectation and it is assumed that
the symbols and the sensor noise are mutually independent. [ Olx2MN, . . ·,Olx2MN, �:
Ilh = � 1I
Then, it is obvious that any linear combination of principal
. (22)
Also, with the assumption that at each subcarrier i, the symbols
Sil(P), t 1, ... , 2K are mutually independent and exploiting
=
eigenvectors in (22) as
the specific structure of the matrices A k(hi) expressed in (16) h = aOuO+al ul+···+aNo-l uNo-1
and (17), we obtain the subspace model
= Va , (23)
E{ ll si(p)112 }hih;+ Ka 2 I2 M N with vector of linear c�efficients a � [ao ...aNo_I]T such
, '-.,...-.'
Ilh' ll and U � [ uo,··· ,UNo-I] is also a scaled
v

dominant component noise contribution that Iiall=

2K 2K version of the principal eigenvector of X'. In specific, it

+ L L E{ lsil(P)12 }<pI<Plhih;<Pf<Pk follows from (22) that the true channel vector in (7) can be
k=ll=l;l#k
,
written as
v

orthogonal to dominant component h' Ilho lluo + IIh11luI + ...+ IlhNo-duNo-1

=

(18) where ai = Ilhi II, i 0, . . . ,No-1. Hence, h' is one out of

=

It has been proved in [2] that Ui hi/llhi ll is the principal No linearly independent principal eigenvectors of X' with the
associated eigenvalue Amax(X') 1, i.e.,
=

eigenvector of Xi, hence =

(19)
X'h' Amax(X')h' h'.
= = (24)
Interestingly, from (19), (22), and (23) we observe that the
where principal eigenvectors of X' are formed from the principal
Amax(Xi) E{ ll si(p)112 } llhi I12 +Ka2
= (20) eige�vectors Ui �
. II�: II of the subcarrier-wise covariance
matrIces Xi. ThIS Important property stems from the specific
denotes the principal eigenvalue of Xi. It should be empha­
sized that when the underlying OSTBC is identifiable and normalization of the subcarrier-wise covariance matrices by
M > 1, U i is unique, see e.g. [2] and [10]. In this paper Amax(Xi) introduced in (21). Note that the latter property
we consider only OSTBCs for which Xi in (18) has a unique holds true even if we replace the true covariance matrices Xi
principal eigenvalue, see Table I in [10]. in (18) by its respective finite sample estimates
To enable the coherent processing over all subcarriers, we
1 2K P
extend the covariance model preserving the signal subspace Xi � P
L L Yi(k ,p)Yi(k ,pf . (25)
property in which the true subcarrier channel vectors are k=lp=l
As further discussed in the next section, this property ensures Towards this aim, let us define the 2MNNo x 2MN (L' +1)
that the coherent processing of all subcarriers covariance selection matrix

)x2MN(L'+1 )
matrices in (21) does not introduce any bias to the estimation
problem. jU+1 �
-
[ 12MN(u+1
02MN(No-(U+1 ) X2MN(U+1 )
].
Using the linear relation among the channel frequency
responses and the channel impulse responses in (7) and from Then, from (8), we obtain that for L' ::::: L and g= g'
the orthogonality of the DFT matrix F, we can rewrite (24)
as
[gI,+1 ' OrMN(No-(U+1 ))x1
T
]
FTX'Fg'= Amax(X')FT Fg'= Amax(X')No g'. jU+1 gU+1
Thus, the true channel vector in time domain, g', is the -JU+1-JTU+1 g (31)
scaled version of the normalized principal eigenvector of the
matrix P X'F with the respective eigenvalue Amax(X')No where
of multiplicity No. As a result, the true channel vector is a (32)
solution of the following optimization problem
is formed from g by elimination of the last
g= arg m.?-x gT FTX'Fg 2MN (No - (L' + 1)) elements.
g Hence, inserting (31) in (26) we obtain the eigenproblem
s.t. IIg l12 = IIg' I12 (26)

where g � [ giL ..., g'ho-1 f is the 2MNNo x 1 vector of

time-domain optimization variables. As the principal eigen­
value of FTX'F has mUltiplicity No, the solution of (26) is
generally not unique. It can be concluded from (7) and (23)
that any solution of (26) can be represented as
We conclude that under condition (30) and for L' ::::: L,
the reduced size true channel vector, g � '+1 is given by the
'

principal eigenvector of jI'+1 PX' Fju+1 . Note that the

g = No -
FTUa (27) dimension reduction in (33) not only enforces the uniqueness
of the solution, it also reduces the computational complexity
where Iiall= Ilh' ll·
of the method and removes the part of the noise components
The idea proposed in this paper is to search among all
in time domain exceeding the maximum assumed delay spread
possible solutions of (26) for the solution, which exactly
L' of the channel.
satisfies the finite delay spread assumption. Let us assume
It is noteworthy to mentioned that in contrast to the method
that according to (2), the true channel impulse response has
of [6], in our scheme only an upper limit on the number of
L + 1 efficient taps. Hence, for L' ::::: L, we can introduce the
efficient channel taps, L', is required instead of the respective
constraints
true value, L. This alleviates the need of an accurate channel
gNo-(U+1 )= ...= gNo= 02MNx1 . (28) order estimation method prior to the channel estimation.

Considering (27), we obtain the following IV. COMPARISON TO P REVIOUS METHODS

- = 02MN(No-(U+1 »X1
JTU+1 go = JTu+1 FTUa (29) In this section we compare our proposed normalization
of the individual subcarrier covariance matrices in (21) with
where the normalization schemes suggested in [7] and [8]. In our

JU+1 =
l:. 02MN(U+1 )X2MN(No-(U+1 »
[ 12M ] approach, the subcarrier covariance matrices are normalized
N(No-(U+1 »x2MN(No-(U+1 » by the respective eigenvalues Amax(Xi). According to the
discussion in the previous section, this normalization ensures
is a 2MNNo x 2MN (No (L' + 1)) selection matrix ex­
-
that, the principal eigenvectors of the extended covariance
tracting only the last 2MN (No i L' + 1)) entries of g.
-
matrix X' are formed from the principal eigenvectors
JI,+1 FTU is of dimensions
II�: II
As the matrix of the subcarrier-wise covariance matrices Xi. Note that for
2MN (No - (L' + 1))xNo, for 2MN (No - (L' + 1)) < No, different normalizations, this property does no longer hold
the linear system of equations in (29) becomes true, resulting in a bias introduced to the estimation problem
underdetermined. Hence, there exists more than one solution when coherently combining the subcarrier covariances in (21).
for Ct. In other words, for (L' + 1) > No(2MN-1)j(2MN), Next, we show that the normalization proposed in [7] and
the solution of (26) with constraints (28) is not unique. [8] is different from our normalization. It can be proved, e.g.,
Reversely, if for the single snapshot case, that the weighting proposed in
(L' + 1) ::; No(2MN-1)j(2MN) (30) [7] is equivalent to

then, for randomly fading channels, the matrix JI'+1 PiJ is I'i= IIYi(I)112 = Yi(1f Yi(l)
full-rank with probability one, and, therefore, a unique solution = ( A( hi) si( I)) T (A(hi)si(I))
to (26) is generally obtained.
In the following, we prove that this solution is given by the +2 ( A( hi) si( I)) Tvi(l)
true channel vector g'. +vi(lfvi(I). (34)
whereas in our case, the weighting is given by

Amax(Xi) (A(hi)Si(l)) TIIA(P{X;}) (A(hi)Si(l))

+ 2 (A(hi) Si(l) ) TIIA(p{X;})Vi(l)
+ vi(1fIIA(p{x;})Vi(l). (35)

where IIA(P{Xi}) is the orthogonal projector onto the column

space of A(P{ Xi}) and P{ Xi} stands for the normalized
principal eigenvector of Xi. It can be observed by comparing
(34) and (35) that in general, Amax(Xi) and 'Ii are not equal. It
can be readily verified that the same statement also holds true
in the case of multiple snapshots. Only for the asymptotic case
of large sample sizes, i.e., when Xi = Xi, the weightings 'Ii
and Amax(Xi) become identical. Similarly, the method of [8], -5 10 15
SNR(dB)
20 25 30 35 40

where the subcarrier covariance matrices are not normalized

at all is obviously different from our approach.
Fig. 1. Bias versus SNR., first example, P = 2.
Finally, it should be noted, that as the norm of the true
channel vector g' is unknown, corresponding estimated version
can be used in the proposed estimator (33), see e.g. [6].

V. SIMULATIONS

In our simulations, the entries of Gl are independently

drawn from a Gaussian distribution with zero mean and
variances O';z and are kept fixed in each simulation run. It is
assumed that N = 3, M = 2, K = T = 4, and No = 64. The
full rate OSTBC of [12, Equation (27)] with BPSK symbols
is used. For this simulation setup, neither in the infinite ([10,
Table I]) nor in the finite sample cases, the respective prin­
cipal eigenvalue of Xi and Xi has multiplicity. The proposed
estimator is compared to the generalized eigenvalue estimator
of [7] and the relaxed maximum likelihood (RML) technique
of [8].
The estimation bias, computed for a fixed channel vector g'
as the norm of the averaged channel estimation errors

1
Fig. 2. RMSE versus SNR., first example, P 2.
g1�1 �
_ Nfs
I
Bias =
1 -
=

_
Nruns m= Ilg1�111 Ilg'll
l

the fact that in the asymptotic cases of large SNR or a large

where Nruns is the number of Monte-Carlo runs, and g1�1
is the estimate of the g' in the mth run is shown in Fig. 1
and Fig. 3. Further, for different channel realizations the root
mean square estimation error (RMSE)
RMSE=
m
where g,( ) is the channel realization in the mth run, is
displayed in Fig. 2, Fig. 4 and Fig. 5.
In the first simulation setup, P = 2, L = L' = 5 and
the results are averaged over 200 Monte Carlo realizations.
Fig. 1 displays the estimation bias for all methods tested
versus the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). It can be observed
from Fig. 1 that in this setup, the RML approach of [8]
shows a considerable bias for all SNR values. In the low
SNR region, the generalized eigenvalue method of [7] shows
a higher estimation bias compared to the proposed method. In
the high SNR region, the difference of the bias between the
latter methods is less pronounced. This corresponds well to
number of available snapshots, i.e., for Xi= Xi, both methods
become identical. A similar observation can be made from
Fig. 3, where the number of available snapshots is increased
to P = 20.
Fig. 2 shows the RMSE of all the methods tested versus
the SNR. A similar relationship between these methods as
previously noted for the bias can also be observed for the
RMSE. However, the RMSE difference between the proposed
method and the method of [7] is less pronounced than for the
bias in Fig. 1.
In the second and the third simulation setup, SNR=1O dB.
The number of samples were set to P = 2 and the RMSE
obtained from the different channel estimation methods is
depicted versus the assumed upper limit for the number of
channel taps, L'. The results are averaged over 200 Monte
Carlo channel realizations. In the former example, the true
channel length is fixed at L = 5, and the channel is generated
according to the "Vehicular N' model of the ETSI [13]. In the
latter example, L = L' and both values are varied from 5 to
30.
 0 .8

0.7

� 0.6 �4 �� �� �-o- �-� -0-0- .()-o- .()-� �-� �-� 4-

� /".if
0.5 �
,
, �D��� O �DD
O
��DDBDBDDD
O
.8·,D
-
'
0
,

0.' . ---+-
I
RML-based method of[8]
- � - GEV-based method of [7J
.. · 0 ·. . Proposed method
025�------�'0------ �'�====�
5 ��====�� ====�W
Assumed upper limit for the channel length

Fig. 3. Bias versus SNR., first example, P = 20. Fig. 4. RMSE versus L', second example, L = 5.

Fig. 4 and Fig. 5 show the RMSE for all the methods
tested versus L' for the second and the third simulation setup,
respectively. It can be seen from Fig. 4 that in all methods, the
best estimation performance is obtained for L L'. Hence,
=

increasing L' results in a performance degradation. This can

be explained by the parsimony principle as the number of 0.9
'"
estimation parameters increases with L'. Also, in Fig. 5, we
observe that the best performance for all the methods tested � 0.8
corresponds to the case where the channel is less frequency
selective or L is minimum. Increasing the delay spread while 0.7
�-� �-
keeping the number of subcarriers fixed results in performance 4-�..ty
0.6 _0- .()-o- .()-
o- .()A
degradation. Finally, it can be observed from Fig. 4 and Fig. 5 ' . 0.. '
: �: :. . !.:. . !.n.a . . .. .
.()_o- .()-o- .()
_ _
[:} o .Q··s." I:}" 8"
.. ..
o o " I:}" o ..o. .o" I:} ..I:}'.'EI
that the proposed method yields a lower RMSE comparing to . . .
0.55 10 15 20 25 30
the other methods tested. Assumed upper limit for the channel length

REFERENCES
[1] H. Sampath et aI., "A fourth generation MIMO-OFDM broad­
band wireless system: Design, performance, and field trial
results," IEEE Comm. Mag., vol. 40, pp. 143-149, Sept. 2002.
[2] S. Shahbazpanahi, A. B. Gershman, and J. H. Manton, "Closed­
form blind MIMO channel estimation for orthogonal space-time
block codes," IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 53, pp. 4506-
4517, Dec. 2005.
[3] w.-K. Ma, B.-N. Vo, T. N. Davidson, and P.-C. Ching, "Blind
ML detection of orthogonal space-time block codes: Efficient
high-performance implementations," IEEE Trans. Signal Pro­
cess., vol. 54, pp. 738-751, Feb. 2006.
[4] J. Via, and I. Santamaria, "Covariance matching approaches for
blind OSTBC channel estimation," IEEE Trans. Signal Process.,
vol. 56, pp. 5950-5961, Dec. 2008.
[5] T.-H. Chang, w.-K. Ma, and c.-Y. Chi, "Maximum-likelihood
detection of orthogonal space-time block coded OFDM in un­
known block fading channels," IEEE Trans. Signal Process.,
vol. 56, pp. 1637-1649, April 2008.
[6] N. Sarmadi, S. Shahbazpanahi, and A. B. Gershman, "Blind
channel estimation in orthogonally coded MIMO-OFDM sys­
tems: A semidefinite relaxation approach," IEEE Trans. Signal
Process., vol. 57, pp. 2354-2364, June 2009.
[7] J. Via, I. Santamaria, J. Perez and L. Vielva, "A new subspace
method for blind estimation of selective MIMO-STBC chan­
nels," Wire!. Commun. Mob. Comput., Wiley InterScience, pp. 1-
15, Aug. 2009.
Fig. 5. RMSE versus L', third example, L = L'.
[8] N. Sarmadi, A. B. Gershman, and S. Shahbazpanahi, "Closed­
form blind channel estimation in orthogonally coded MIMO­
OFDM systems," in Proc. ICASSP' 10, Dallas, Texas, USA, Mar.
2010, pp. 3306-3309.
[9] E. G. Larsson, and P. Stoica, Space-Time Block Coding for
Wireless Communications, Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge Univ.
P ress, 2003.
[10] J. Via and I. Santamaria, "On the blind identifiability of orthog­
onal space-time block codes from second-order statistics," IEEE
Trans. In! Theory, vol. 54, pp. 709-722, Feb. 2008.
[11] B. Balakumar, S. Shahbazpanahi, and T. Kirubarajan, "A kalman
filtering approach to joint MIMO channel tracking and symbol
decoding for orthogonal space-time block codes," in Proc.
SAM '06, Waltham, Massachusetts, US A, July 2006, pp. 244-
248.
[12] V. Tarokh, H. Jafarkhani, and A. R. Calderbank, "Space-time
block codes from orthogonal designs," IEEE Trans. In/. Theory,
vol. 45, pp. 1456-1467, Jul. 1999.
[13] Universal Mobile Telecommunications System (UMTS); selec­
tion procedures for the choice of radio transmission technologies
of UMTS, Technical Report TR 101 112 V3.2.0, ETSI, Novem­
ber 1997.