1

On Time-of-Arrival Estimation in NB-IoT Systems

Abstract—We consider time-of-arrival (ToA) estimation of a
first arrival-path for a device working in narrowband Internetof-Things (NB-IoT) systems. Due to a limited 180 KHz bandwidth
used in NB-IoT, the time-domain auto-correlation function (ACF)
of transmitted NB positioning reference signal (NPRS) has a wide
main lobe. Without considering that, the performance of ToA estimation can be degraded for two reasons. Firstly, under multiplepath channel environments, the NPRS corresponding to different
received paths are superimposed on each other, and so are the
cross-correlations corresponding to them. Secondly, the measured
peak-to-average-power-ratio (PAPR) used for detecting the presence of NPRS is inaccurate. Therefore, in this paper we propose a
space-alternating generalized expectation-maximization (SAGE)
based method to jointly estimate the number of channel taps,
the channel coefficients and the corresponding delays in NB-IoT
systems, with considering the imperfect ACF of NPRS. Such a
proposed method only uses the time-domain cross-correlations
between the received signal and the transmitted NPRS, and
has a low complexity. We show through simulations that, the
ToA estimation of the proposed method performs close to the
maximum likelihood (ML) estimation for a single-path channel,
and significantly outperforms a traditional ToA estimator that
uses signal-to-noise (SNR) or power thresholds based estimation.

I. I NTRODUCTION
Observed-time-difference-of-arrival (OTDOA) is a downlink positioning method adopted in long-term-evolution (LTE)
[2], which relies on time-of-arrival (ToA) estimates from
at least three base-stations. The 3rd Generation Partnership
Project (3GPP) has dedicated a significant effort to enhance
positioning support for newly featured narrowband Internetof-Things (NB-IoT) systems [2], [3]. The NB positioningreference-signal (NPRS) is transmitted to enhance positioning
measurements at receivers to ensure sufficiently high signal
quality and detection probability, which is distributed in time
and frequency resources over a subframe, and a number of
consecutive positioning subframes can be allocated with a
certain periodicity. In a subframe where NPRS is present,
no data but only control signalings are transmitted to reduce
interference such as depicted in Fig. 1.
In NB-IoT systems, the quadrature phase-shift keying
(QPSK) modulated NPRS symbols are generated and mapped
to one physical resource block (PRB) (180 KHz) [2]. A
number of consecutive NPRS subframes can be configured
and transmitted periodically in every radio frame (10ms), and
the period of one positioning occasion can be configured to
more than a second. The minimum unit of ToA used in LTE
is Ts = 1/30.72 µs, which corresponds to a distance-resolution
about 10 meters (m). To successfully position an NB-IoT
device, ToA for at least three base-stations need to be detected.
With more detected base-stations, the positioning resolution
can be further improved.

R6

One and two PBCH antenna ports

arXiv:1711.03832v1 [] 10 Nov 2017

Sha Hu, Xuhong Li, and Fredrik Rusek
Department of Electrical and Information Technology, Lund University, Lund, Sweden
{firstname.lastname}@eit.lth.se

R6
R6 R0

R6 R0

R6

R6
R6 R0

R0

R6
R6
R6

R6 R0

R6 R0

R6

l=0

R6
R6 R0

R0

…...
ns is even

R6

…...

l=6 l=0

l=6

ns is odd

PRS subframe

Fig. 1. An NPRS pattern in one PRB with normal cyclic-prefix (CP) in LTE.
The NPRS transmitted on antenna port 6 is labeled as R6 , while the normal
cell-specific reference signal (CRS) sent on antenna port 0 is labeled as R0 .

A rich literature exists for ToA estimation which can be
considered as channel estimation problem, and investigations
have been carried out for ultra wideband (UWB) and OFDM
systems such as in [4], [5]. For NB-IoT system, ToA estimation becomes more challenging due to a limited number
of NPRS symbols transmitted in a bandwidth 180 KHz, even
though the channels are assumed constant over one subframe
due to low mobility of NB-IoT devices. As shown in [6],
it is difficult to distinguish two arriving paths with a timedelay difference less than an inverse of the signal bandwidth
[6]. Under multiple-path environments, the imperfect NPRS
auto-correlation functions (ACF) corresponding to different
received paths are superimposed on each other, and degrades
the ToA estimation performance. Further, even under a singlepath channel such as AWGN, the measured peak-to-averagepower-ratio (PAPR) used for detecting ToA is inaccurate
without considering the wide lobe of the ACF.
Subspace fitting algorithms such as multiple signal classification (MUSIC) [7] and estimation of signal parameters
via rotational invariance techniques (ESPRIT) [5] can be
efficient in estimating the ToA with superimposed signals. But
the computational complexities are relative high and Fourier
transformations are needed to transfer the received signal
into frequency domain. In [4], the authors propose a lowcomplexity extension of the sliding correlator for channel
and ToA estimations based on maximum likelihood (ML)
principle, in the presence of pulse overlap for impulse-radio
UWB system. However, the authors assume that, the number
of channel taps are known and no overlap between three or
more consecutive paths, which may not apply in NB-IoT systems. Traditionally, there are also threshold-based algorithms

2

In the considered single-input-single-output (SISO) NB-IoT
system, we assume a sampling-rate F̃s with a typical value
1.92 MHz. Denote the true delay of the ith channel tap as τi ,
which is measured in number of samples as
(1)

Then, the superimposed received samples y[n] with a total
length D for all L taps can be modeled as
L−1
X

hi s[n−di ] + w[n],

(2)

i=0

where s[n] is the time-domain NPRS signal (including CP)
transmitted in one subframe with a total length S, and hi are
complex-valued channel coefficients that are assumed constant
over one subframe. The noise w[n] is modeled as AWGN with
a zero-mean and variance σ 2 , and the SNR is defined as
SNR = σs2 /σ 2 ,

(3)

where σs2 is the averaged power of transmitted s[n].
Traditionally, in order to detect the ToA, i.e., d0 , a crosscorrelation between the received samples y[n] and the NPRS
s[ n] is implemented with a correlator, which yields
R[d] =

d+S−1
X

L−1
X

k=d

i=0

y[k]s∗ [k − d] =

hi γ(d − di ) + w̃[d],

Amplitude

0
-150

-100

-50

0

50

100

(4)

150

Delay [Ts]

1

0.5

0
-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

400

Delay [Ts]

Fig. 2. The amplitude of time-domain ACFs of PRS in one subframe with
100 PRB and 1 PRB at sampling rate 30.72 MHz, respectively.

where γ(d) is the normalized ACF of s[n] with delay d, and
w̃[d] is the noise term after correlation which is colored. An
NPRS signal is claimed to exist if a following condition
max {|R[d]|}
d

PAPR ,

1
D

D−1
P

> η1 ,

(5)

|R[d]|

d=0

is satisfied, where D is the length of R[d] that corresponds to
a possible maximum time-delay. With (5) satisfied, a threshold
based method [4], [10] estimates the ToA d0 according to


|R[d]|
d0 = argmin
> η2 .
 max {|R[d]|}

d

A. Received Signal Model

y[n] =

0.5




II. P ROBLEM F ORMULATION

di = bτi F̃s c.

1

Amplitude

for ToA estimation utilizing such as measured signal-to-noise
(SNR) and power [8]–[10]. In [11], the authors propose an
iterative algorithm for ToA estimation based on the ACF,
which iteratively cancels the peaks from the obtained crosscorrelations. However, as the peaks are incorrect caused by
overlapping of ACFs corresponding to different channel taps,
it does not improve the performance of ToA estimation for
NB-IoT systems [12].
In this paper, we consider ToA estimation in NB-IoT
systems where only one PRB is used for data-transmission. As
the ML function depends on the unknown number of channel
taps, the channel coefficients and the delays, the optimal
estimation has prohibitive complexity. Therefore, we propose a space-alternating generalized expectation-maximization
(SAGE) based method to jointly estimate these parameters and
the ToA, with considering the ACF of the time-domain NPRS
signal. The proposed algorithm is based on the time-domain
cross-correlations of the received signal and the transmitted
NPRS signal which yields a low computational cost, and
mainly comprises two steps running iteratively: The first step
uses the SAGE algorithm to estimate the channel coefficients
and the corresponding delays for a given number of channel
taps; While the second step uses heuristic approaches to
remove the invalid channel taps. We show through simulations
results that, the proposed ToA estimation method works well
both for a single-path channel such as AWGN and multi-path
fading channels, which is difficult for traditional threshold
based ToA estimators to achieve.

(6)

d

In (5) and (6), η1 and η2 are predefined thresholds that can be
adjusted for different scenarios.
There are several drawbacks of estimating ToA applying (5)
and (6) in NB-IoT systems. Firstly, when channel coefficients
hi are unkown, the non-coherent addition in (5) of R[d] is
inferior to a coherent addition that compensates the channel
impacts [12]. Secondly, since the ACF of the NPRS has a
wide lobe in NB-IoT systems, it should be considered in the
PAPR evaluation in (5). Thirdly, the estimate d0 in (6) can be
inaccurate under the case that max {|R[d]|} is attained with
d
the correct ToA such as under a sing-path channel channel.
Lastly, the threshold in (6) needs to be tuned for different
channels types, which is however, unknown to the receivers.
In Fig. 2 the amplitude of normalized time-domain ACF
of the NPRS transmitted in 100 PRBs and only one PRB at
sampling rate 30.72 MHz are shown. As what can be clearly
seen that, with only one PRB used, the ACF has a wide lobe.
Hence, the ACFs corresponding to different channel taps in
R[d] can be superimposed with each other. We illustrate such
an phenomenon through an example below.
Example 1. Consider a customized two-path channel with
constant coefficients h = [0.4, 1] and delays τ = [0, 160Ts ].
The noiseless cross-correlation R[d] is shown in Fig. 3.

3

where R̃` [d] is the cross-correlation that removes the other
estimated NPRS, which equals

1.2

1

R̃` [d] =

Amplitude

0.8

d+S−1
X

ỹ` [k]s∗ [k − d].

(10)

k=d
0.6

with
L−1
X

0.4

ỹ` [n] = y[n] −

0
-600

h̃i s[n− d˜i ].

(11)

h̃i γ(d − d˜i ).

(12)

i=0,i6=`

0.2

Inserting (11) into (10) yields
-400

-200

0

200

400

600

L−1
X

Delay [Ts]

Fig. 3. The superimposed cross-correlations in Example 1, with the correct
ToA at 0, but the maximum of |R(d)| is achieved at d = 138, due to the
strong impact from a second path.

Denote the delay vector d = [d0 , d1 , · · · , dL−1 ] and the
channel vector h = [h0 , h1 , · · · , hL−1 ]. From (2), the ML
estimator is
(d̃, h̃, L̃) = arg min
d,h,L

n=0

y[n] −

i=0,i6=`

With (12), the noise power is estimated as

B. Formulation of ToA Estimation

N
−1
X

R̃` [d] = R[d] −

L−1
X

2

hi s[n−di ] ,

(7)

i=0

Directly optimizing (7) for all possible values of the unknown
parameters can yield a prohibitive complexity. Therefore, we
next solve (7) in a suboptimal manner with an objective
of good performance for all types of channel and a low
computational cost.
III. P ROPOSED T OA E STIMATION M ETHOD
The proposed ToA estimation method to solve (7) mainly
comprises two steps. In a first step, we assume L is known
and estimate h and n using SAGE algorithm [13]. Then, in
a second step, heuristic approaches are used to refine L and
removing invalid channel taps. These two steps are running
iteratively until L converges. As shown in Table 1, an initial
value of L can be set to 9, 5 and 2 for R[d] evaluated at
30.72 MHz, 1.92 MHz and 240 KHz, respectively, which is
sufficiently large to cope with the largest delays for the listed
fading channels.

σ̃ 2 =

D−1
1 X
|R̃` [d] − h̃` γ(d − d˜` )|2 .
D

Then, d˜` is updated as in (9), and finally the channel coefficient
h̃` is updated as
E
1 X ∗
γ (k)R̃` [d˜` + k],
h̃` =
2E

We first present the SAGE based algorithm which is summarized in Algorithm 1. If there is no priori information about
the channel delays and coefficients, we can sort |R[d]| and set
an initial d̃ to the locations of the L largest values, and an
initial channel estimate as
h̃` = R[d˜` ],

0 ≤ ` < L.

(8)

Let d̃ and h̃ be the estimated delays and channel coefficients
in a previous iteration. Then, in a next SAGE iteration, the
delay of the `-th tap can be updated as
d˜` = arg max R̃` [d],
d

(9)

(14)

k=−E

followed by an LMMSE filtering
h̃` =

h̃`
.
1 + σ̃ 2 /|h̃` |2

(15)

The variable E is yet to be optimized, which depends on the
property of the ACF shown in Fig. 1. In principle, for a singlepath channel, it is beneficial to set E to a large value to denoise
the estimate h̃` . However, for multiple-path channel, a large E
can also degrade the accuracies of estimate h̃` , due to potential
interferences from the other channel taps. Therefore, it is a
trade-off between these two different channel types.
The processes (9)-(15) are implemented successively for
each of the L channel taps. In such a way, solving problem
(7) is transfered to solve a following problem
(d̃, h̃, L̃) ≈ arg min
d,h,L

A. Step 1: SAGE Iteration with a Given L

(13)

d=0

D−1
X
d=0

R[d] −

L−1
X

2

hi γ(d − di ) ,

(16)

i=0

which is suboptimal (due to the colored noise in (4)), but
simplifies the original problem in two aspects: Firstly, the
length D of correlations R[d] is in general much shorter
then the length N of NPRS s[k], hence, the number of
complex multiplications are reduced. Secondly, only one crosscorrelation process is needed to compute R[d] in solving (16).
To summarize, the SAGE algorithm in the first main
step runs iteratively with three sub-steps: First, the ACFs
corresponding to the other channel taps are removed from
the cross-correlations. Second, h̃` and d˜` are updated based
on the updated R̃` [d] successively for all taps. Lastly, the
reconstructed signal h̃` γ(d − ñ` ) with refined estimates are
then removed from R̃[d] before moving on to the processes of
the next path.

4

TABLE I
D ELAY P ROFILE IN N UMBER OF SAMPLES AND R ELATIVE P OWER IN D B AT DIFFERENT SAMPLING - RATE .
Channel Type

30.72 MHz

1.92 MHz

240 KHz

[0, 1, 2, 3, 6, 13] samples

[0, 1] samples

0 sample

[0, -1.0, -2.0, -3.0, -8.0, -17.2, -20.8] dB

[0.0, -25.7] dB

0 dB
[0, 1] sample

EPA

EVA

ETU

[0, 1, 5, 10, 11, 22, 33, 53, 77] samples

[0, 1, 2, 3, 5] samples

[0, -1.5, -1.4, -3.6, -0.6, -9.1, -7.0, -12.0, -16.9] dB

[ 0, -2.3, -10.9, -15.9, -20.8] dB

[0, -23.1] dB

[0, 2, 4, 6, 7, 15, 49, 71, 154] samples

[0, 1, 3, 4, 10] samples

[0, 1] sample

[-1.0, -1.0, -1.0, 0, 0, 0, -3.0, -5.0, -7.0] dB

[0, -6.4, -9.4, -11.4, -13.4] dB

[0, -14.9] dB

Algorithm 1 SAGE based Channel Estimation
Require: Normalized auto-correlation γ(d), cross-correlation
R[d], tap-length L and SAGE iteration number M .
1: If no initial inputs d and h available: Sort |R[d]| and set
an initial d̃ to be the locations of the L largest values, and
the channel estimate h̃` = R[d˜` ] for all 0 ≤ ` < L.
2: for ` = 0, 1, · · · , L − 1 do
L−1
P
R̃[d] = R[d] −
3:
h̃` γ(d − d˜` )
i=0

end for
if L = 1 then
Break
else
for m = 0, 1, · · · , M − 1 do
9:
for ` = 0, 1, · · · , L − 1 do
R̃[d] = R̃[d] + h̃` γ(d − d˜` )
10:
2
D−1
P
1
11:
σ̃ 2 = D
R̃[d]
4:
5:
6:
7:
8:

The first heuristic step is to remove channel taps that are
far away from the peak position d˜peak . That is, if

d=0

12:
13:
14:
15:
16:
17:
18:
19:

Algorithm 2 Proposed ToA estimator for NB-IoT
Require: An initial input L0 .
1: Run Algorithm 1 with L = L0 , and output h̃, d̃ and σ̃ 2 .
2: With input h̃ and d̃, output refined h̃ and d̃ after removing
invalid paths satisfying (19).
3: With input h̃ and ñ, output further refined h̃, d̃ and L
after removing invalid paths satisfying (20).
4: while L < L0 do
Set L0 = L.
5:
6:
Repeat Step 1 with initial inputs d̃ and h̃.
7:
Repeat Step 2 and Step 3.
8: end while
9: If condition (21) is satisfied, set L = 1, d˜0 = dpeak , and
h̃0 = hpeak ; Otherwise, go to the next step.
10: Output a final ToA estimate d˜0 .

d˜` = arg max |R̃[d]|
d
P
E
1
∗
˜
h̃` = 2E
k=−E γ (k)R̃` [d` + k]
h̃`
h̃` = 1+σ̃2 /|h̃ |2
`
R̃[d] = R̃[d] − h̃` γ(d − d˜` )
end for
end for
end if
Output estimated h̃, d̃ and σ̃ 2 .

|h̃` − d˜peak | > dmax

B. Step 2: Refinement of L
With the estimated h̃ and d̃, we next propose heuristic
methods to detect L and remove invalid channel taps, which
comprises two steps and is summarized in Algorithm 2.
We first consider the case that only one-path is presented,
i.e., L = 1, then from (7), the ML estimates [14] of channel
delay and coefficient are

(19)

is satisfied, h̃` is classified as an invalid path and removed
from h̃, and d̃ is updated accordingly. Then, L is also updated
as the number of remaining taps. The variable dmax is the
maximum time-difference that is allowed. The rationale behind
this step is that, the first-path should not be too far away from
the position where a peak is found, especially at low SNRs.
For instance, as seen from Table 1, the largest time-difference
between all channel taps for three fading channels are below
10 at sampling rate 1.92 MHz, and dmax can be set to 10 in
this case.
The second heuristic step is to recursively remove the
channel taps with power less than a fraction of the total
channel power. That is, if
2

|h̃` | < η3

 X

2

|h̃` |


,

(20)

0≤`<L

d˜peak = arg max R[d],

(17)

d

h̃peak = R[d˜peak ].

(18)

These two estimates plays an key role in finding possible
invalid paths.

holds, then the `-th path is removed from h̃ and so is the delay
ñ` in ñ, and L is also updated as L − 1. Such a process is
repeated until the condition (20) is violated for all remaining
taps. The threshold η3 is a also pre-defined and yet to be
optimized, which can be set to, for instance, 0.1.

5

1

C. The Proposed ToA Estimation Method

R[d] − hpeak γ(d − dpeak )

2

0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
PAPR measured without NPRS

0.3
0.2
0.1
0

0

5

10

15

PAPR

Fig. 4. The PAPR improvements with considering the ACF of NPRS under
AWGN channel at SNR -4 dB.
1.5
0 dB
5 dB
10 dB

1.4

(21)

d=0

then we claim that there is only one path exist and set the
ToA estimate to dpeak . This is due to the sub-optimality of the
proposed algorithm, which may converge to a local optimum
especially when the true condition is that only a single-path
is present.

1.3

Estimated noise power

1
σ̃ ≥
D
2

D−1
X

Proposed method @ 1.92 MHz
Proposed method @ 240 KHz
Traditional method @ 1.92 MHz
Traditional method @ 240 KHz

0.8

CDF

Based on the introduced two steps, the proposed ToA
estimation method is then summarized in Algorithm 2, which
starts with a sufficient large L and run Algorithm 1 to generate
initial estimates of h̃ and d̃. Then, the estimates are refined
by removing the channel taps that satisfy conditions (19) and
(20). If the number of channel taps afterwards is less than the
initial value, using the updated L and refined estimates h̃, d̃ as
initializations to run Algorithm 1 again, followed by removing
the invalid paths and the refinement of L. These two steps run
iteratively until L converges. With the last outputs h̃, d̃ and
σ̃ 2 , there is one more step to improving the ToA estimation
for a single-path and AWGN channels. That is, if the output
noise power σ̃ 2 is higher than the noise power estimated with
dpeak and hpeak in (17) and (18), i.e.,

0.9

1.2
1.1
1
0.9
0.8
0.7

IV. N UMERICAL R ESULTS
In this section, we provide numerical results to show the
performance of the proposed ToA estimator. Without loss of
generality, we assume a sampling frequency of 1.92 MHz
for ToA estimation with a sample time 16Ts , due to low-end
analog devices used in NB-IoT receivers. We make no attempt
to optimize the parameters and set E = 4 in (14), dmax = 10
in (19) and η3 = 0.1 in (20). The true value of ToA is set
to 50 samples. The number of SAGE iterations in Algorithm
1 is set to M = 8 with an initial L = 5 for all test cases.
For comparison, we also set η2 = 0.5 in (6) for a traditional
threshold based ToA estimator as in [10].
A. PAPR Improvement for False-Alarm Probability
First we show the PAPR improvements with considering the
impact of NPRS ACF under AWGN channel. We evaluated at
sampling rate 1.92 MHz and 240 KHz, respectively. The PAPR
is measured in (5) for both methods, while for the proposed
method, R[d] in the denominator is replaced by R̃` [d] in (12)
that removes the ACF centered at the peak position. As can be
seen from Fig. 4, when there is no NPRS presented, the CDFs
of the PAPR are almost the same for both methods at different
sampling rates. However, when NPRS is presented, the CDFs
of PAPR are further pushed to right of the proposed method
compared to the traditional method. That means, the falsealarm probability of detecting NPRS is improved by removing
the impact of the ACF in the proposed method.
B. Convergence of the SAGE Algorithm
Next we show the convergence speed of the proposed SAGE
Algorithm under ETU-3Hz channel at SNR 5 dB. We show the
estimated noise power σ̃ 2 that are averaged over 2000 channel

0.6
0.5

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

SAGE iter.

Fig. 5. Convergence of Algorithm 1 in the first running under ETU-3Hz
channel. Each curve is averaged over 2000 channel realizations.

realizations. As can be seen in Fig. 5, the algorithm converges
fast in around 8∼10 SAGE iterations.
We also show an example of R̃` [d] with removing the
ACFs corresponding to each of the detected channel path
in Fig. 6 with the proposed method. The peak of R[d] is
attained at d˜peak = 53 while the true value is 50. With the
proposed algorithm, the ToA can be correctly detected with
four channel taps detected at delays [50, 51, 53, 54] and
estimated channel coefficients h = [0.2882−2.7396i, 0.0076−
2.7314i, −0.5047−2.5380i, −0.6967−2.3480i]. In this case,
the fifth channel tap is undetected due to its low power. As it
can be seen that, with removing each of the four detected path
component successively, the amplitude of R̃` [d] decreases and
acts like a noise floor at last.
C. ToA Detection Performance
Last we show the ToA detection performance with the
proposed ToA estimation method under different channels. We
measure both the exact detection probability, and the detection
probability that the estimate errors are less than 3 samples.
In Fig. 7, the detection probabilities of the proposed method
are compared to the ML estimator under AWGN channel,
where the ML estimator utilizes the priori information that
only one channel tap exists and the ML estimates are in (17)
and (18), while the proposed method does not use such a priori
information. As can be seen, the proposed method performs
close to the ML in both cases.

6

1

12
Original superimposed correlation function
Remove the first detected path
Remove the second detected path
Remove the third detected path
Remove the fourth detected path

10

0.9
0.8

0.6

Pd [%]

Amplitude

EPA-3Hz, proposed method, 2 samples
ETU-3Hz, proposed method, 2 samples
EPA-3Hz, proposed method
ETU-3Hz, proposed method
ETU-3Hz, traditional method, 2 samples
EPA-3Hz, traditional method, 2 samples

0.7

8

6

0.5
0.4

4
0.3

2

0.2
0.1

0

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Delay [16Ts]

0.9

Pd [%]

0.8

0.7

0.6

Proposed SAGE based ToA detection
Proposed SAGE based ToA detection,
ML ToA detection
ML ToA detection, 2 samples

-18

-16

-14

-12

-10

-5

0

5

10

-10

-8

Fig. 8. ToA detection performance under EPA-3Hz and ETU-3Hz Channel.

corresponding delays. Then in a second step, the estimated
channel taps and number of taps are refined by removing
invalid paths. These two steps run iteratively until the number
of estimated channel taps is converged. We show through
simulation results that, the proposed ToA estimation method
performs close to the maximum likelihood (ML) estimator for
a single-path channel, and outperforms a traditional threshold based ToA estimator without considering the impacts
of multiple-path channel and the ACF of NPRS in NB-IoT
systems.

1

0.4
-20

-15

SNR [dB]

Fig. 6. The amplitude of the correlation R̃[d] with removing the four detected
paths under ETU-3Hz Channel at SNR 5 dB.

0.5

0
-20

2 samples

R EFERENCES
-6

-4

SNR [dB]

Fig. 7. ToA detection performance under ETU-3Hz channel.

In Fig. 8, the detection probabilities of the proposed method
are compared to the traditional estimator under fading channels. As can be seen, the traditional threshold based method
performs quite poor under both EPA-3Hz and ETU-3Hz channels even with tolerable estimate errors less than 3 sample.
With tolerable estimate errors less than 3 sample, even at
SNR -15dB, the detection probability using the proposed ToA
estimation method is above 75% and 90% under ETU-3Hz
and EPA-3Hz channels, respectively. The performance under
EPA-3Hz channel is better due to the fact that, as seen from
Table 1, at sampling rate 1.92 MHz, EPA channel degrades
to a single path channel (since the power of the second path
is negligible), while ETU-3Hz channel comprises 5 taps that
make it is more difficult for ToA estimation.
V. S UMMARY
We have considered time-of-arrival (ToA) estimation in narrowband Internet-of-Things (NB-IoT) systems and proposed
a low-complexity space-alternating generalized expectationmaximization (SAGE) based method for joint estimating the
number of channel taps, the channel coefficients and the
delays. Due to a limited bandwidth 180 KHz and the number
of NPRS symbols used, the time-domain auto-correlation
function (ACF) of the NB positioning reference signal (NPRS)
is not perfect and has a wide lobe. By taking this impairment
into account, in a first step of the proposed ToA estimation
method, the SAGE algorithm is utilized to decompose the
superimposed correlations corresponding to different channel
taps and generate estimates for channel coefficients and the

[1] S. Fischer, “Observed time difference of arrival (OTDOA) positioning
in 3GPP LTE,” Qualcomm White Paper, Qualcomm Technologies Inc.,
Jun. 2014.
[2] 3GPP TS 36.211, “Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access (EUTRA): Physical channels and modulation,” Release 14, Dec. 2016.
[3] 3GPP TSG RAN WG1, R1-168310, “WF on simulation assumption for
NB-IoT positioning ,” Gothenburg, Sweden, 22-27 Aug. 2016.
[4] F. Vanhaverbeke, Y. L. Guan and M. Moeneclaey, “Optimal channel and
time-of-arrival estimation for IR-UWB in the presence of pulse overlap,”
IEEE Int. Conf. on Commun., (ICC), Cape Town, South Africa, May,
2010, pp. 1-5.
[5] V. Prabhu and D. Jalihal, “An improved ESPRIT based time-of-arrival
estimation algorithm for vehicular OFDM systems,” IEEE Veh. Tech.
Conf. (VTC), Barcelona, Spain, Apr. 2009, pp. 1-4.
[6] M. Takeshi and T. Hitoshi, “Superresolution of Mltipath delay profiles
measured by PN correlation method,” IEEE Trans. Antennas and Propagation, vol. 40, no. 5, pp. 500-509, May, 1992.
[7] X. Li and K. Pahlavan, “Super-resolution TOA estimation with diversity
for indoor geolocation,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 3, no. 1,
pp. 224-234, Jan. 2004.
[8] J. Liu and S. Feng, “RSTD performance for small bandwidth of OTDOA
positioning in 3GPP LTE,” IEEE Veh. Tech. Conf. (VTC), Las Vegas,
NV, USA, Jan. 2014, pp. 1-5.
[9] W. Xu, M. Huang, C. Zhu, and A. Dammann, “Maximum likelihood
TOA and OTDOA estimation with first arriving path detection for 3GPP
LTE system,” Trans. Emerging Tel. Tech., Aug. 2014.
[10] H. Rydén, et al., “Baseline performance of LTE positioning in 3GPP 3D
MIMO indoor user scenarios,” International Conference on Location and
GNSS (ICL-GNSS), Gothenburg, Sweden, Jun. 2015.
[11] H. Rydén, A. A. Zaidi, S. M. Razavi, F. Gunnarsson, and I. Siomin,
“Enhanced time of arrival estimation and quantization for positioning
in LTE networks,” IEEE International Symposium on Personal, Indoor
and Mobile Radio Communications (PIMRC), Sep. 2016.
[12] Sha Hu, Axel Berg, Xuhong Li, Fredrik Rusek, “Improving the performance of OTDOA based positioning in NB-IoT systems,” accepted
in IEEE Global Commun. Conf. (GLOBECOM), Singapore, 4-8 Dec.
2017.
[13] S. Hu, G. Wu, B. E. Priyanto, F. Rusek, S. Kant, and J. Chen, “Iterative
interference cancellation method,” Patent US20140369300 A1, filed on
Aug. 2014.
[14] S. M. Kay, “Fundamentals of statistical signal processing, volume I:
Estimation theory,” Prentice Hall signal processing series, 1993.

