1878 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MICROWAVE THEORY AND TECHNIQUES, VOL. 54, NO. 4, APRIL 2006
The samples at the output of the square-law device are
(5)
while the samples after correlating with the delayed version of
the signal itself are formulated as
(6)
In the TR case as well, the absolute values of the samples are
used to yield
. The performance can be further im-
proved by having a processing gain from multiple symbol trans-
missions. Note that averaging must be performed prior to abso-
lute-value operation. In what follows, we refer to the number of
symbols as
.
B. Tradeoffs Between Different Transceiver Architectures
It is very well known that matched filtering, in which an SR
template is correlated with the received signal, is an optimal de-
tection technique when the knowledge of the received waveform
shape is available. However, Nyquist-rate sampling is essential
to match with the received signal, so that perfect alignment with
the template and received waveform can be obtained. If only
lower sampling rates are possible, it is apparent from (4) that the
SR will not be able to collect sufficient energy from the received
multipath arrivals due to timing mismatches (and pulse-shape
distortions).
On the other hand, ED and TR signaling can both effectively
capture the received energy. Even at sub-Nyquist sampling
rates, neither scheme requires the knowledge of the sampling
timing or pulse shapes (assuming accurate delay lines for
the TR case). The existence of the TR pulse yields a 3-dB
transmitted energy loss compared with the other two schemes.
Illustration of the timing susceptibility for SR, TR, and ED are
presented in Fig. 3. If a sufficient sampling rate is available, the
SR will better characterize the peak; however, at low sampling
rates (e.g.,
ns), it becomes more likely for SR to miss
the peak.
Note that in noncoherent approaches the enhanced noise
terms in the low SNR region becomes an issue. In particular,
noise-square terms for the ED and noise-cross-noise terms for
TR seriously dominate and degrade the detection performance.
Therefore, even though a noncoherent approach outperforms
the SR at high SNR due to better energy capture at sub-Nyquist
sampling rates, they have poor performance when the noise
variance is large. Moreover, noncoherent schemes suffer from
degraded SNR when symbol energy is spread over more pulses,
whereas energy in an SR symbol can be distributed over mul-
tiple pulses with no SNR loss. Due to similar reasons, TR and
ED are much more susceptible to interference compared to SR.
A cross-correlation receiver can also be considered instead of
TR (as in [13]), which yields identical energy capture with ED
but a smaller noise variance.
Fig. 3. Received normalized pulse shape and the sampled outputs corre-
sponding to SR, ED, and TR for different timing offsets (1-ns pulse is sampled
at 8 GHz, and energy is collected within 1-ns windows and different time
offsets).
Comparing the transmitted waveforms, TR has a longer time
span compared to ED and SR, and
has to be sufficiently large
so that multipath interference between reference and data pulses
is not a serious problem. Also, TR observes enhanced early/
late (E/L) noise terms that arise when either the reference or
data signal samples are correlated with the noise-only samples.
This scales the noise variance at
of the actual TOA by the
signal energy. Finally, the delayed signal from a previous frame
may affect the results for TR receivers, and the
parameter
should be selected carefully considering the frame duration and
the maximum excess delay of the channel.
In the next sections, first, an AWGN channel is considered
to highlight certain points related to different transceiver types.
Some of the fundamental tradeoffs discussed in this section
are expanded in detail. Later, under realistic multipath channel
models, maximum-likelihood techniques for TOA estimation
are given.
III. AWGN C
HANNEL ANALYSIS
UWB receivers typically observe dispersive channels that
have hundreds of multipath components. However, it is more
useful to analyze certain fundamental aspects related to signal
acquisition and leading edge detection in less complicated
scenarios. In this section, we consider an AWGN channel
(
, , ) and analyze performance tradeoffs
between different transceiver types. In particular, decision
statistics (for single and multiple pulses per symbol), as well
as energy collection characteristics under timing mismatch
(due to sub-Nyquist sampling) are investigated in detail. Peak
selection performances are compared for the three schemes,
which are closely tied with signal acquisition. Then, leading
edge detection characteristics are analyzed by conditioning
the detection probability on the leading edge energy, which
depends on the transceiver’s energy collection capability.