Home > On-Demand Archives > Talks >

802.11/Wi-Fi Channel Estimation

Christopher Hansen - Watch Now - DSP Online Conference 2024 - Duration: 39:17

802.11/Wi-Fi Channel Estimation
Christopher Hansen
This talk presents an overview of channel estimation theory and techniques for IEEE 802.11 / Wi-Fi systems. It includes a review of the 802.11 preamble formats, estimation of SISO and MIMO channels, and a discussion of how channel estimates are used in demodulation and decoding. It concludes with recent results in semi-blind channel estimation for 802.11.

This guide was created with the help of AI, based on the presentation's transcript. Its goal is to give you useful context and background so you can get the most out of the session.

What this presentation is about and why it matters

This talk gives a practical, standards-grounded tour of channel estimation methods used in IEEE 802.11 (Wi‑Fi). It starts with the simple, preamble-based frequency-domain estimate used in legacy 802.11a/g, shows how time-domain least-squares (LS) approaches improve those estimates, extends the ideas to MIMO, and finishes with recent work on semi‑blind estimation that can recover channels even when the preamble is lost.

Why this matters: in modern wireless receivers the channel is the dominant impairment. Accurate channel estimates are required for per‑subcarrier equalization in OFDM systems, for MIMO demodulation and spatial processing, and for meeting the throughput and robustness goals of Wi‑Fi products. Understanding both the simple preamble-based recipes and the more advanced LS and semi‑blind techniques helps engineers design better receivers, debug real captures, and trade complexity for performance.

Who will benefit the most from this presentation

  • DSP engineers implementing or testing OFDM receivers for Wi‑Fi product development.
  • RF/PHY engineers who need to interpret over‑the‑air captures and improve link performance.
  • Students or researchers learning practical MIMO channel estimation and how standards shape algorithm design.
  • System architects evaluating complexity/benefit tradeoffs for LS, regularization, and semi‑blind approaches.

What you need to know

This talk assumes basic knowledge of digital communications and signal processing. Key prerequisites that will help you follow the material:

  • OFDM basics: understand that OFDM turns linear convolution with the channel into a per‑subcarrier multiplication when a cyclic prefix (CP) is used. In the frequency domain a transmitted symbol $X_k$ is modified by the channel frequency response $H_k$ so a simple model is $Y_k = H_k X_k + N_k$, where $N_k$ is noise.
  • Cyclic prefix and channel length: the CP must be at least as long as the channel impulse response (CIR) length to avoid inter‑symbol interference. That fact implies correlation across frequency bins and motivates time‑domain estimation.
  • Preambles and training fields: 802.11 packets include known training sequences (short training, long training fields such as LTF or HT‑LTF) that are explicitly designed to simplify channel estimation. Many receivers compute a per‑subcarrier estimate by dividing the received training symbol by the known training tone (often just ±1 in the frequency domain).
  • Least‑squares time‑domain estimation: instead of treating each frequency bin independently you can form a time‑domain convolution matrix X from the known training sequence and solve a LS problem for the CIR h. The normal‑equation solution is
    $\displaystyle \hat{h} = (X^H X)^{-1} X^H y$,
    and a common practical modification is Tikhonov regularization: $\hat{h} = (X^H X + \delta I)^{-1} X^H y$ to improve numerical stability.
  • MIMO extension: with multiple transmit and receive antennas the channel becomes a matrix of per‑antenna impulse responses. 802.11 uses specially phased/repeated LTFs (e.g., sign flips) so a receiver can form simple sums/differences of received LTFs to separate per‑transmit‑antenna channels. The same LS/time‑domain ideas generalize to estimate each matrix element.
  • Semi‑blind and oversampling tricks: when the preamble is missing you can still use structure in the data (pilots plus oversampling) to form equations linking multiple observed phases. For example, oversampling produces two sampled sequences that are related to the same transmit waveform by different effective CIRs; exploiting the commutativity of convolution and the known pilot locations, you can set up a joint LS (or total least squares) problem to recover the channels from data alone.

Glossary

  • OFDM: Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing — a multi‑carrier modulation that converts a frequency‑selective channel into parallel flat subcarriers using FFT/IFFT.
  • Cyclic prefix (CP): a guard interval copied from the end of the OFDM symbol to the front so linear convolution appears circular after the FFT.
  • Preamble / LTF (Long Training Field): known symbols at the start of a packet used for synchronization, AGC, and channel estimation.
  • SISO: Single‑Input Single‑Output — one transmit and one receive antenna.
  • MIMO: Multiple‑Input Multiple‑Output — multiple transmit and/or receive antennas; channel is a matrix of impulse responses.
  • Channel impulse response (CIR): the time‑domain taps h[n] that characterize multipath between a TX/RX pair.
  • Equalization: reversing the channel effect so symbols can be demodulated; in OFDM usually per‑subcarrier multiplication by $1/\hat{H}_k$ (zero‑forcing) or an MMSE scalar.
  • Least squares (LS): an estimation method that minimizes squared error; used here to estimate time‑domain CIRs from known training sequences.
  • Pilot tones: known subcarriers embedded in data symbols used for phase/frequency tracking and sometimes channel tracking.
  • Total least squares (TLS): a variant of LS that accounts for errors in both the data matrix and the observation vector; useful in semi‑blind estimation.

Parting note

Christopher Hansen's talk strikes a nice balance between standard practical recipes and more advanced estimation ideas. If you work on PHY implementation or want to understand how theory maps onto real Wi‑Fi captures, you'll appreciate the mix of clear examples (preamble recipes, least‑squares taps) and the peek into more sophisticated semi‑blind techniques. The presentation is pragmatic, grounded in IEEE 802.11 structures, and useful whether you want to implement a robust receiver or simply make better sense of over‑the‑air measurements.

M↓ MARKDOWN HELP
italicssurround text with
*asterisks*
boldsurround text with
**two asterisks**
hyperlink
[hyperlink](https://example.com)
or just a bare URL
code
surround text with
`backticks`
strikethroughsurround text with
~~two tilde characters~~
quote
prefix with
>

mh
Score: 0 | 1 year ago | 1 reply

Hi Chris,
In your shared repos, it seems that the mat file yCTS.mat is missing. Could you please update?
Besides, the WLAN toolbox is hard to get for individuals. Do you know any open source library to replace the functions like wlanWaveformGenerator.m, wlanNonHTOFDMInfo.m etc. used in your examples? Thanks.

ChristopherSpeaker
Score: 0 | 1 year ago | no reply

I uploaded the yCTS.mat file to github. I'm not aware of a good open source set of functions for the 802.11 PHY layer. For the legacy standards, i.e. 802.11a/g, the PHY is simple enough that you can generate the preamble using the training sequences in the standard and common features such as FFT and convolutional encoding.

Harry
Score: 1 | 1 year ago | 1 reply

When is Total Least Squares the right tool to use? Can you recommend any references (or share source code)?
I can see how to do an ordinary least-squares channel estimation for y = Xh, where X is a Toeplitz matrix of the (noise-free) TX signal. But to solve the inverse problem (to directly design an equalizer g), we want Ygx, where we only have noisy observations of y. Should I then use Total Least Squares?

ChristopherSpeaker
Score: 0 | 1 year ago | 1 reply

In general, Total Least Squares is preferred when there are noisy observations in both the data matrix and the observation vector. A good quick overview of this is in the paper "The Data Least Squares Problem and Channel Equalization" by R. D. DeGroat and E. M. Dowling, IEEE Trans. on Signal Processing, Vol. 41, No. 1, January 1993. p.407 - 411. For more details, I would suggest 2 books. First, Matrix Computations by Golub and Van Loan, 4th Edition. Second, The Total Least Squares Problem by S. V. Huffel and J. Vanderwalle.

Harry
Score: 0 | 1 year ago | 1 reply

Thank you for this really fantastic recommendation. Something feels familiar about the Data Least Squares solution - the projection onto the complement noise subspace reminds me very much of the MUSIC algorithm (and other subspace-based direction-finding algorithms used in array signal processing).

Thank you for your most enlightening presentation. Some years ago, I implemented an 802.11a/g/n/ac receiver (including MIMO) in an FPGA, but I'm not up to speed on 802.11ax/be. Do you know any books covering the new stuff, or should I just dive back into the standard?

ChristopherSpeaker
Score: 0 | 1 year ago | no reply

For 802.11ax/be, I think the standard is the most helpful. I'm not aware of any new books that cover the newer PHY layer.

ChristopherSpeaker
Score: -1 | 1 year ago | no reply

The best description is in the paper "A Least-Squares Approach to Blind Channel Identification" by G. Xu, H. Liu, L. Tong, and T. Kailath, IEEE Trans. on Signal Processing, Vol 42, No 12, December 1995.

Mayur.S
Score: 1 | 1 year ago | 1 reply

Christopher,

For SISO channel estimate, i think the 200 nsec delay is due to Cyclic Diversity Delay mode in 802.11n mode.
As I understand, it is using multiple antennas to transmit copies of time delayed data packets and the receiver can use multiple antennas to receive the signals. Isn't CDD also a type of MIMO mode but sending only 1 spatial stream?
I hope I was able to explain my doubt clearly.
Mayur

ChristopherSpeaker
Score: 0 | 1 year ago | no reply

Yes. The Cyclic Delay Diversity (CDD) is the standard mode for sending legacy packets when a device has more than one transmit antenna. It was designed both to provide diversity and to work with legacy single antenna devices.

Mayur.S
Score: 1 | 1 year ago | no reply

Christopher,
I am not able to understand how oversampling of data symbols aid blind and semi blind estimation.
Kind Regards,
Mayur

Mayur.S
Score: 1 | 1 year ago | 1 reply

Dear Christopher, Thank you for the talk on channel estimation.
I have seen in Wi-Fi QAM constellation diagrams, 2 pilot symbols.
Can you please explain the relevance of the pilot symbols in light of channel estimation.

Kind Regards,
Mayur

Mayur.S
Score: 1 | 1 year ago | no reply

You have answered this towards the end of your presentation :)
Thank you.

Mayur

ChristopherSpeaker
Score: 0 | 1 year ago | no reply

There are a number of practical issues that arise when making OFDM symbols longer and the FFT sizes larger. First, longer OFDM symbols (in time) lead to narrower sub-carrier spacing. Residual timing errors and phase noise will cause interference between sub-carriers if they are too close. Second, longer OFDM symbols require more computations to demodulate and decode. Wi-Fi packets must be fully demodulated and decoded in less than 16 microseconds so the receiver can send an acknowledgement back to the transmitter. 802.11ax already needed to add the packet extension to help with this.

ChristopherSpeaker
Score: 0 | 1 year ago | no reply

The pilots are normally used for tracking residual carrier frequency offset (CFO) when demodulating the data symbols. Typically, the receiver will try to estimate the CFO from the L-LTF (legacy long training field) and possibly refine that estimate on other symbols in the preamble. However, there will often be residual errors as well as phase noise that be present in each data symbol. So, the pilots can be used as phase references on each symbol to help remove these errors.

Mayur.S
Score: 1 | 1 year ago | no reply

Christopher,
The long OFDM symbol duration of 12.8 usec in 802.11ax standard improved spectral efficiency by around 20%.
Why did not the 802.11be WG further increase the OFDM symbol length by X2 or X4 to further improve spectral efficiency? Are there any limitations on FFT size on the DSP?
Kind Regards,
Mayur

ChristopherSpeaker
Score: 0 | 1 year ago | no reply

I have a Matlab LiveScript that I used to generate the plots and equations for the main sections of the talk here: https://github.com/covariantcorp/matlabExamples . You will need Matlab and the WLAN toolbox to run the script. For the semi-blind estimation, that will take a little more work but I will eventually put it into the same repository.

Leonard
Score: 1 | 1 year ago | no reply

Christopher, do you have the code for your session posted in a repo somewhere that you can share?

ChristopherSpeaker
Score: -1 | 1 year ago | no reply

The y axis is magnitude. The samples, x, are complex (I/Q) so I use abs(x) in Matlab.

Gary
Score: 1 | 1 year ago | no reply

Slide 13: Is the format of the left image of the CTS capture an AM demod (mag / mag^2)?