Sparsity-Aware Joint Frame Synchronization and
Channel Estimation: Algorithm and USRP
Implementation
Özgür Özdemir∗ , Ridha Hamila† , Naofal Al-Dhahir‡ , and İsmail Güvenç∗

∗ Department

arXiv:1709.01474v1 [cs.IT] 5 Sep 2017

‡

of Electrical & Computer Engineering, North Caralina State University, Raleigh, NC
† Department of Electrical Engineering, Qatar University, Doha, Qatar
Electrical Engineering Department, The University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, TX
Email: {oozdemi, iguvenc}@ncsu.edu, hamila@qu.edu.qa, aldhahir@utdallas.edu

Abstract—Conventional correlation-based frame synchronization techniques can suffer significant performance degradation
over multi-path frequency-selective channels. As a remedy, in
this paper we consider joint frame synchronization and channel
estimation. This, however, increases the length of the resulting
combined channel and its estimation becomes more challenging.
On the other hand, since the combined channel is a sparse vector,
sparse channel estimation methods can be applied. We propose a
joint frame synchronization and channel estimation method using
the orthogonal matching pursuit (OMP) algorithm which exploits
the sparsity of the combined channel vector. Subsequently, the
channel estimate is used to design the equalizer. Our simulation
results and experimental outcomes using software defined radios
show that the proposed approach improves the overall system
performance in terms of the mean square error (MSE) between
the transmitted and the equalized symbols compared to the
conventional method.
Index Terms—Equalization, frame synchronization, MSE,
OMP, SDR, sparse channel estimation, USRP.

I. I NTRODUCTION
In communication systems where the information symbols
are transmitted in frames, it is essential to determine the
frame boundary correctly to avoid performance degradation. In
conventional systems, frame synchronization is performed by
correlating a known training sequence with the received data
and the point which gives the highest correlation is selected
as the frame boundary [1]. In multi-path fading environments
where the delay spread is larger than the symbol duration,
the correlation peak gets widened and it becomes difficult to
identify the exact frame boundary. Moreover, if the location of
the dominant multi-path component happens to be somewhere
other than the first tap, this location will give the highest
correlation and an incorrect frame boundary will be chosen.
Equalization aims to convert the multi-path channel into
a single-tap flat-fading channel which would improve the
accuracy of the frame synchronization. However, the channel
estimate required for equalization is often calculated using the
training symbols, with the knowledge of the frame boundary
This publication was made possible by NPRP grant # NPRP 6-070-2-024
from the Qatar National Research Fund (a member of Qatar Foundation). The
statements made herein are solely the responsibility of the authors.

itself. Therefore, a joint synchronization and channel estimation approach is desirable for simultaneously obtaining the
channel estimates and the frame boundary.
In order to tackle this problem, we model the frame boundary offset as an unknown delay introduced to the channel
which we call the combined channel. This combined channel is
estimated and the equalizer is designed based on this estimate.
The disadvantage of this approach is that the length of the
channel impulse response (CIR) may increase by an amount
as large as the duration of the frame length and the channel
estimation becomes more complex. However, we note that
introducing delay into the channel is equivalent to padding
the CIR with zeros. Therefore, the number of non-zero CIR
elements that needs to be estimated does not increase and the
combined channel vector becomes sparse. As a result, sparse
channel estimation methods can be used to reduce complexity.
Sparse channel estimation has been considered in [2] using
a matching pursuit (MP) algorithm [3], [4] while a technique
based on least mean squares (LMS) is proposed in [5]. Neither
of the methods in [2]–[5] consider frame synchronization.
Earlier work on joint frame synchronization and channel
estimation includes [6] for OFDM systems, [7] and [8] for
CDMA systems, and [9] for optical communication systems.
However none of them exploit the sparsity of the combined
channel vector. To the best of our knowledge, joint frame
synchronization and channel estimation using sparse methods
has not been studied in the literature.
In this paper, we propose a joint frame synchronization
and channel estimation method using the orthogonal matching
pursuit (OMP) algorithm which exploits the sparsity of the
combined CIR vector. An equalizer is designed using the
estimated channel. Subsequently, the mean square error (MSE)
between the equalizer output and the transmitted symbols is
used to illustrate the performance of the proposed method.
Both simulation results and the experimental results using
universal software radio peripherals (USRPs) demonstrate the
performance improvements using the proposed method.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows. Section II
describes the system model. In Section III, the proposed
joint frame synchronization and channel estimation method

Frame Boundary
y(n)

y(n + D̄ − 1) y(n + D̄)

···

D̄ samples from
previous frame

···

z(n)

y(n + M − 1)

M − D̄ samples from
current frame

delay by D̄

h

x(n)

y(n)
h̃

Fig. 1. The received samples and the illustration of frame boundary D̄ for a
data frame.

Fig. 2. The system model that takes the multi-path channel and delay into
consideration.

is explained. An equalizer design using the channel estimate
obtained in Section III is discussed in Section IV. Simulation
and experimental testbed results in Section V verify the
performance improvements when the proposed method is used.
The paper is concluded in Section VI.
Notation: Vectors are represented by lower-case boldface
letters. Matrices are represented by upper-case boldface letters.
The transpose is denoted by (.)T and E [.] is the expectation
operator.

···

II. S YSTEM M ODEL
We consider a frame-based communication system over
a multi-path frequency-selective channel. The information
symbols are transmitted in frames and the receiver must
estimate the frame boundary, which is referred to as frame
synchronization, and perform channel estimation. The channel
estimate is used for channel equalization and demodulation to
recover the information symbols at the receiver. The multi-path
T
CIR is denoted by the vector h = [h0 , h1 , · · · , hL ] where
L is the CIR memory. If frame synchronization is performed
prior to the channel estimation, then, assuming symbol-spaced
sampling at the receiver, the n-th received symbol after frame
synchronization can be written as follows
y(n) =

L
X

x(n − l)hl + z(n) = x(n)h0 + · · · + z(n), (1)

l=0

where x(n) is the transmitted symbol and z(n) is the additive
white Gaussian noise (AWGN) symbol at time n. Note that, in
constructing y(n), x(n) is multiplied by h0 . On the other hand
if frame synchronization is not performed prior to channel
estimation then the received signal becomes
y(n) =

L
X

x(n − D − l)hl + z(n),

(2)

l=0

where D is the delay, in symbol periods, between the transmitter and the receiver. Note that, in this case x(n − D) is
multiplied by h0 . Suppose that the transmitted frames contain
M received samples and that we arbitrarily collect M samples
{y(n), · · · , y(n+M −1)} without the knowledge of the frame
boundary denoted by D̄. The frame boundary, D̄, is a random
number between 0 and M − 1. If the frame boundary is equal
to zero, then all of the M received samples correspond to the
same frame. Otherwise, some initial samples actually belong
to the previous frame, as illustrated in Fig. 1. The delay D
in (2) and the frame boundary D̄ are related by
D = mM + D̄,

(3)

Training
Frame

Data
Frame

Data
Frame

Data
Frame

Training
Frame

Data
Frame

Data
Frame

Data
Frame

···

M̃ samples M samples

Fig. 3. The frame structure we assume to perform joint channel estimation and
frame synchronization. One training frame is transmitted every P frames. This
figure assumes P = 4. The value of P is determined based on the channel
coherence time. The size of the training frame is M̃ samples and the size of
the data frame is M samples.

where m = 0, 1, · · · is an integer. To divide the received
samples into frames, the knowledge of m is not required as
shown in Fig. 1. Therefore, we only investigate finding D̄ for
frame synchronization.
Although it is possible to perform frame synchronization
and channel estimation separately, we may treat them jointly
as well by defining the following delayed and zero-padded
combined CIR vector h̃
h̃ = [0, 0, · · · , 0 h0 , h1 , · · · , hL , 0, 0, · · · , 0 ]T .
| {z } |
{z
} | {z }
hT

D̄ zeros

(4)

M−D̄−1 zeros

The system model that takes the multi-path channel and delay
into consideration is illustrated in Fig. 2. In (4), the M − D̄ −1
zeros at the end do not have any effect as far as the input and
output of the delayed and zero padded CIR h̃ is concerned.
However, they ensure that the length of h̃ is M + L which is
independent of the value of D̄. Note that, as long as M ≫ 1,
h̃ is a sparse vector regardless of h being sparse or not.
III. J OINT S PARSE C HANNEL E STIMATION AND F RAME
S YNCHRONIZATION
In order to perform joint channel estimation and frame
synchronization, we assume that a known training frame with
size M̃ > M is transmitted periodically as shown in Fig. 3.
The size of the training frame needs to be larger than the
size of the data frame for reasons that will be explained later.
The estimate of h̃ is calculated using the training frame and
it is used to equalize and decode the data frames until the
next h̃ estimate is calculated when the next training frame is
transmitted again after P frames. The period P is determined
according to the channel coherence time. The input-output
relation of the system model illustrated in Fig. 2 is
y(n) =

M+L−1
X

x(n − l)h̃l + z(n),

l=0

where h̃l is the l-th element of h̃.

(5)

Since data frames are assumed to contain M samples, the
receiver will collect M samples as in Fig. 1 when the current
frame is a data frame. On the other hand, when the current
frame is a training frame with size M̃ , the receiver collects
M̃ samples {y(n), · · · , y(n + M̃ − 1)}. Note that, because D̄
is an integer in [0, M − 1], in the worst case, D = M − 1 and
the samples y(n + M ), y(n + M + 1), · · · , y(n + M̃ − 1) are
guaranteed to be in the training frame rather than in the frame
preceding the training frame. In joint channel estimation and
frame synchronization a subset of these samples y(n + M̃ −
NE ), y(n + M̃ − NE + 1), · · · , y(n + M̃ − 1) are used where
NE is the number of equations. Using (5) and the sample
y(n + M̃ − 1) the first equation is given by
y(n + M̃ − 1) =

M+L−1
X

xt,M̃ −1−l h̃l + z(n + M̃ − 1), (6)

where X̃†t is the pseudo-inverse of X̃t and this solution is
called the least-squares solution if the measurement matrix X̃t
is a tall matrix and it is called the minimum-norm solution if
X̃t is a fat matrix. The problems with this classical solution
are as follows:
1) To obtain an accurate estimate of h̃, the number of
equations NE may be prohibitively large which increases
the computational complexity.
2) The solution is not guaranteed to be a sparse solution
although we know that h̃ is a sparse vector.
B. Proposed Sparsity-Aware Approach
Since h̃ is a sparse vector, the problem in (9) can be viewed
as a sparse signal recovery problem which can be formulated
as follows
arg minkh̃k0 , s.t. ky − X̃t h̃k22 ≤ ǫ,

l=0

where xt,0 , · · · , xt,M̃ −1 are the known transmitted symbols in
the training frame. Similarly, the last equation becomes
y(n+M̃ −NE ) =

M+L−1
X

xt,M̃ −NE −l h̃l +z(n+M̃−NE ). (7)

l=0

In (7) when l = M + L − 1, we have xt,M̃−NE −l =
xt,M̃ −NE −M−L+1 . Therefore, in order to guarantee that
xt,M̃ −NE −l is a valid training symbol the following needs to
be satisfied:
M̃ − M − L − NE + 1 ≥ 0.

y = X̃t h̃ + z,

(9)

where
h
iT
y = y(n + M̃ − 1), y(n + M̃ − 2), · · · , y(n + M̃ − NE )
(10)
is the known received vector of size NE ,


xt,M̃ −1 xt,M̃ −2 · · · xt,NE −1

..

 xt,M̃ −2 xt,M̃ −3

.


X̃t = 
(11)

.
.
.
.


.
.
xt,M̃ −NE

···

xt,0

is the NE × (M + L) measurement matrix constructed from
known training symbols, and z is the noise vector
h
iT
z = z(n + M̃ − 1), z(n + M̃ − 2), · · · , z(n + M̃ − NE ) .
(12)
A. Classical Solution
The system of equations in (9) can be solved to estimate the
combined CIR vector h̃. The classical solution of this problem
(which does not exploit the sparsity of h̃) is given by
ˆ
†
h̃
classical = X̃t y,

where kh̃k0 is the number of non-zero elements in h̃. The
notation k  k2 denotes the ℓ2 -norm and ǫ can be chosen as a
function of the noise variance.
To reduce the computational complexity of the Np-hard
problem in (14), the ℓ0 -norm minimization is relaxed to an
ℓ1 -norm minimization problem and solved using the computationally efficient orthogonal matching pursuit (OMP) method.
This solution is denoted by
ˆ
h̃omp = OMP(y, X̃t , stopping criterion),

(8)

Therefore, M̃ ≥ M + L + NE − 1. Choosing M̃ = M +
L + NE − 1 (to reduce the training overhead) and stacking NE
received samples in a column vector we get

(13)

(14)

h̃∈CM +L

(15)

where the stopping criterion can be a predefined sparsity level
on kh̃k0 .
C. Conventional Approach
The conventional approach for frame synchronization and
channel estimation is performing them separately. First, by
cross-correlating the received data symbols with the training
ˆ in [0, M −
symbols, an estimate of the frame boundary, D̄
1
1] is obtained . Then, the equations in (9) can be expressed
compactly as follows
y = Xt h + z,

(16)

where



xt,M̃ −D̄ˆ −L−1


..
 x

.
 t,M̃−D̄ˆ −2 xt,M̃ −D̄ˆ −3

Xt = 

..

..

.


.
···
xt,M̃−D̄ˆ −L−N
xt,M̃ −D̄ˆ −N
E
E
(17)
is the NE × (L + 1) measurement matrix constructed from
known training symbols.
To gain some insight from (16), the following observations
are in order:
1) The first equation defined by the first row of Xt is given
ˆ.
in (6) where D̄ is replaced by D̄
xt,M̃−D̄ˆ −1

xt,M̃ −D̄ˆ −2

···

1 The cross-correlation method is optimal for frequency-flat channels and
becomes suboptimal for multipath frequency-selective channels.

1

z(n)
h̃

y(n)

Sparse FIR
Linear Equalizer x̃(n − ∆)

x̂(n − ∆)
0.5

Channel
Estimator
ˆ
h̃

Fig. 4. The complete system model illustrating the combined channel, channel
estimator and the equalizer.

ˆ = 0, then X
2) Xt is a sub-matrix of X̃t . For example if D̄
t
ˆ = M − 1,
consists of the first L + 1 columns of X̃t . If D̄
then Xt consists of the last L + 1 columns of X̃t .
3) Unlike h̃ which will always be a sparse vector, h may
or may not be a sparse vector.
If h is not sparse, then the classical least-squares solution
ĥ = X†t y is a reasonable low complexity approach to solve
this problem although sparse methods can still be applied if
h is a sparse CIR vector. Once ĥ is obtained, the combined
CIR vector estimate becomes
ˆ
h̃conv = [0, 0, · · · , 0 ĥT , 0, 0, · · · , 0 ]T .
| {z }
| {z }
ˆ zeros
D̄

IV. E QUALIZER D ESIGN BASED

(18)

ˆ −1 zeros
M−D̄

ON

C HANNEL E STIMATES

The multi-path channel introduces inter-symbol interference
which should be equalized before the decisions on the symbols
are made. The complete system model is illutrated in Fig. 4.
Here, the channel estimate from the previous section is used
to design the equalizer. The performance of the equalizer will
depend on the accuracy of the channel estimate. Therefore,
the performance of different channel estimators from the
previous section can be compared by evaluating the equalizer
performance. To reduce the complexity of the equalizer, we
implement the sparse FIR linear equalizer design of [10],
[11]. The output of the equalizer is the soft estimate of the
transmitted
symbol x(n) and can be expressed as x̃(n) =
PN −1
y(n
−
k)wk , where wk is the k-th element of the
k=0
equalizer vector w and N is the length of the equalizer. The
performance metric adopted is the MSE defined as follows


(19)
MSE = E |x̃(n) − x(n − ∆)|2 ,
where ∆ is the equalizer delay which is optimized to reduce
the MSE. Finally, the transmitted symbols’ estimates are
calculated using a decision device based on the type of signal
constellation used.
V. S IMULATION

AND

E XPERIMENTAL R ESULTS

A. Simulation Results
The CIR that we assume in the simulation is similar to
the channel in [2] and is shown in Fig. 5. This CIR has
L + 1 = 101 taps with 10 non-zero taps given by: h0 = −0.5,
h7 = 0.1, h14 = 0.9, h33 = −0.3, h49 = 0.5, h51 = −0.25,
h69 = −0.3, h73 = 0.3, h89 = 0.4, and h100 = −0.1. The data
frame length is M = 1000. For channel estimation, NE = 148

Amplitude

x(n)

0

-0.5
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Channel Tap

Fig. 5. The CIR h used in the simulations.

equations are used. The length of the training frame is M̃ =
M +L+NE −1 = 1247. We set the frame boundary D̄ = 500.
We assume that we do not know the number of non-zero
taps in the CIR and we can only have an upper bound on it
which we set as 20. For the conventional approach, the least
squares solution is used. The channel estimates obtained using
the methods introduced in Section III are shown in Fig. 6
where BPSK modulation is used and SNR is set to 20 dB.
For the conventional method, we also show the genieassisted results where the receiver knows the correct frame
ˆ is obtained using
boundary D̄ = 500. Otherwise, when D̄
cross-correlation of the received data with the transmitted
ˆ = 514 is obtained which corresponds to
training frame, D̄
the location of the strongest multi-path component. By visual
inspection of the estimates, we see that the classical approach
performs poorly compared to all other approaches. The joint
sparse estimate and the genie-assisted conventional method
have similar performance. Note that the conventional method
without genie assistance is unable to estimate the 2 taps before
the strongest tap at time index 514.
Using the channel estimates from different methods and
the ideal channel to design the equalizer, we illustrate the
MSE performance in Fig. 7. The sparse FIR equalizer based
on [10] has 1200 taps with only 200 active taps. We observe
that the proposed joint sparse method outperforms the genieassisted conventional method for SNR larger than 5 dB. Furthermore, for SNR greater than 20 dB, the joint sparse method
achieves same performance as in perfect channel knowledge
with perfect frame synchronization. The performance of the
conventional method is not satisfactory due to the errors in
identifying the frame boundary.
B. Experimental Results with USRPs
The performance of the proposed method was also evaluated
using our wireless testbed at Qatar University consisting of
a transmitter and a receiver where the transmitter and the
receiver are composed of one laptop computer connected to
a USRP N210 device [12] as shown in Fig. 8. Baseband
processing of the signals as well as the communication with
the USRP devices are done in MATLAB.

Amplitude

1

Actual Channel
Joint Classical Estimate

0.5
0
-0.5
-1
0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

Combined Channel Tap

Amplitude

1

Actual Channel
Joint Sparse Estimate

0.5
0
-0.5
-1
0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

Combined Channel Tap

Amplitude

1

Actual Channel
Genie-Assisted Conv. Est.
Conventional Estimate

0.5
0
-0.5
-1
450

500

550

600

650

Combined Channel Tap

Fig. 6. The channel estimates obtained from classical method, joint sparse method, and conventional method with and without genie assistance. The last
subplot showing conventional method has been zoomed in so that no estimate remains outside of the plot for better viewing.

1

Joint Classical Method
Conventional Method
Genie-Assisted Conventional Method
Proposed Joint Sparse Method
Perfect Combined Channel Knowledge

0.9

0.8

0.7

MSE

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

SNR (dB)

Fig. 7. Equalizer MSE performance of different methods using simulations.

USRP
Transmitter

USRP
Receiver

Fig. 8. System model for USRP experiments

The testbed is based on QPSK transmitter [13] and receiver [14] examples in MATLAB. We select a training frame
period P = 10. Data frames contain M = 100 QPSK symbols
whereas the training frame contains M̃ = 147 QPSK symbols.
The symbols are up-sampled by 4 and passed through a raised
cosine transmit filter. These samples are transmitted in the 2.4
GHz ISM band at a sampling rate fs = 200 kHz. The same
sampling rate is used at the receiver as well. The received
samples go through automatic gain control (AGC) and a raised

cosine receive filter. At the output of this filter, the oversampling factor is reduced to 2. After coarse frequency compensation and fine frequency compensation, timing recovery is
performed. During timing recovery over-sampling is reduced
to 1 and the receiver clock is synchronized to the transmitter
clock. However, the frame boundary is not determined yet.
The channel needs to be equalized as well. At this point we
can apply the different methods presented in this paper for
frame synchronization and channel estimation.
In our USRP-based experiments, the multi-path symbolspaced CIR used to generate the received samples was
h = [1 0.7]T . Fig. 9 shows the channel estimates using
NE = 43 equations where the real and imaginary parts of
the channel estimates are drawn seperately. The channel is
assumed to contain L + 1 = 6 non-zero taps. At the top
of the figure we have the joint classical method where the
channel is estimated using (13). Next, the channel estimate
obtained using the proposed method is shown where the sparse
OMP algorithm in (15) is used for channel estimation. The
conventional method where the frame synchronization and
channel estimation are performed separately, is at the bottom
of Fig. 9. We note that both methods seem to locate the frame
boundary; however, it is obvious that the classical method
performs the worst as its estimate is spread across the frame.
To assess the performance of each method, we perform
the sparse FIR linear equalization of [10] as explained in
Section IV. The equalization is performed for data frames
using the channel estimates obtained during the training frame.
Fig. 10 shows the MSE results as a function of the number
of active taps used in the equalizer out of a total of 200 taps.
Note that the proposed method outperforms the conventional
and the joint classical methods. Because the joint classical
method results in an inaccurate channel estimate, the MSE
increases as the number of active taps increases. We also note

0.5

0
Joint Classical Estimate-Real Part

Amplitude

Amplitude

0.5

-0.5

0
Joint Classical Estimate-Imaginary Part

-0.5
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0

10

20

30

40

Tap

70

80

90

100

0.5

0
Joint Sparse Estimate-Real Part

Amplitude

Amplitude

60

Tap

0.5

-0.5

0
Joint Sparse Estimate-Imaginary Part

-0.5
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0

10

20

30

40

Tap

50

60

70

80

90

100

Tap
0.5

0
Conventional Estimate-Real Part

-0.5

Amplitude

0.5

Amplitude

50

0
Conventional Estimate-Imaginary Part

-0.5
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Tap

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Tap

Fig. 9. The channel estimates obtained from classical method, joint sparse method, and conventional method with and without genie assistance.

that around 10 active taps are sufficient for the equalizer to
converge to the optimum performance.
0.4
0.35
Joint Classical Method
Conventional Method
Proposed Joint Sparse Method

0.3

MSE

0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Number of Active Tabs
Fig. 10. MSE performance of different methods as a function of the number
of active equalization taps.

VI. C ONCLUSION
In this paper, we proposed a joint frame synchronization
and channel estimation method for frame-based communication systems. The proposed sparsity-aware method attains
superior performance compared to the conventional method
where frame synchronization and channel estimation are done
separately. A full frame is dedicated to training; however, the
overhead due to training can be minimized by increasing the
period of the training frame by taking the coherence time of the
channel into consideration. Future research includes extensions
to multi-antenna and multi-user systems and investigating
more sophisticated sparse recovery algorithms than the simple
OMP considered in this paper.

R EFERENCES

[1] J. Massey, “Optimum frame synchronization,” IEEE Transactions on
Communications, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 115–119, Apr. 1972.
[2] S. F. Cotter and B. D. Rao, “Sparse channel estimation via matching
pursuit with application to equalization,” IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 374–377, Mar 2002.
[3] S. G. Mallat and Z. Zhang, “Matching pursuits with time-frequency
dictionaries,” IEEE Trans. on Sig. Proc., vol. 41, no. 12, pp. 3397–3415,
Dec. 1993.
[4] S. F. Cotter, R. Adler, R. D. Rao, and K. Kreutz-Delgado, “Forward
sequential algorithms for best basis selection,” IEE Proceedings - Vision,
Image and Signal Processing, vol. 146, no. 5, pp. 235–244, Oct. 1999.
[5] G. Gui, W. Peng, and F. Adachi, “Improved adaptive sparse channel
estimation based on the least mean square algorithm,” in Proc. IEEE
Wireless Commun. and Netw. Conf. (WCNC), Apr. 2013, pp. 3105–3109.
[6] J. H. Wen, G. R. Lee, J. W. Liu, and T. L. Kung, “Joint frame
synchronization and channel estimation scheme using regression method
in OFDM systems,” in Proc. IEEE International Conference on Wireless
Commun., Netw. and Mobile Comp., Sept. 2007, pp. 164–167.
[7] M. Marey, M. Guenach, F. Simoens, and H. Steendam, “Soft information
aided ML joint frame synchronization and channel estimation for
downlink MC-CDMA in the presence of narrowband interference,” in
Proc. IEEE Vehic. Technol. Conf. (VTC), Apr. 2007, pp. 2180–2184.
[8] M. Marey, M. Guenach, and H. Steendam, “Code aided joint frame
synchronization and channel estimation for uplink MC-CDMA in the
presence of narrowband interference,” in Proc. IEEE Vehic. Technol.
Conf. (VTC), Sept. 2008, pp. 1–5.
[9] Y. Cheng, J. Tan, L. Liu, J. He, J. Tang, L. Chen, J. Zhang, Q. Li, and
M. Xiao, “Method of joint frame synchronization and data-aided channel
estimation for 100-Gb/s polarization-division multiplexing-single carrier
frequency domain equalization coherent optical transmission systems,”
Optical Engineering, vol. 55, no. 2, Feb. 2016.
[10] A. O. Al-Abbasi, R. Hamila, W. U. Bajwa, and N. Al-Dhahir, “A general
framework for the design and analysis of sparse FIR linear equalizers,”
in Proc. IEEE Global Conference on Signal and Information Processing
(GlobalSIP), Dec. 2015, pp. 834–838.
[11] ——, “Design and analysis of sparsifying dictionaries for FIR MIMO
equalizers,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 16,
no. 4, pp. 2576–2586, April 2017.
[12] Ettus Research LLC. [Online]. Available: http://www.ettus.com
[13] QPSK Transmitter with USRP Hardware. [Online]. Available:
http://www.mathworks.com/help/supportpkg/usrpradio/examples/qpsk-transmitter-with[14] QPSK Receiver with USRP Hardware. [Online]. Available:
http://www.mathworks.com/help/supportpkg/usrpradio/examples/qpsk-receiver-with-usr

