Differences between passive-phase conjugation and decision-feedback equalizer for underwater acoustic communications

Passive-phase conjugation (PPC) uses passive time reversal to remove intersymbol interferences (ISIs) for acoustic communications in a multipath environment. It is based on the theory of signal propagation in a waveguide, which says that the Green's function (or the impulse-response function) convolved with its time-reversed conjugate, summed over a (large-aperture) vertical array of receivers (denoted as the Q function) is approximately a delta function in space and time. A decision feedback equalizer (DFE) uses a nonlinear filter to remove ISI based on the minimum mean-square errors (mmse) between the estimated symbols and the true (or decision) symbols. These two approaches are motivated by different principles. In this paper, we analyze both using a common framework. We note the commonality and differences, and pros and cons, between the two methods and compare their performance in realistic ocean environments, using simulated and at-sea data. The performance measures are mean-square error (mse), output signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), and bit-error rate (BER) as a function of the number of receivers. For a small number of receivers, the DFE outperforms PPC in all measures. The reason for poor PPC performance is that, for a small number of receivers, the Q function has nonnegligible sidelobes, resulting in nonzero ISI. As the number of receivers increases, the BER for both processors approaches zero, but at a different rate. The modeled performance differences (in mse and SNR) between PPC and DFE are in general agreement with the measured values from at-sea data, providing a basis for performance prediction.

[1]  Simon Haykin,et al.  Adaptive filter theory (2nd ed.) , 1991 .

[2]  H.C. Song,et al.  Underwater acoustic communications using time reversal , 2001, IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering.

[3]  Martin Siderius,et al.  Characterization of the internal waves and its effect on signal propagation in the Adventure Bank area , 2000 .

[4]  S. Thomas Alexander,et al.  Adaptive Signal Processing , 1986, Texts and Monographs in Computer Science.

[5]  W. Kuperman,et al.  Phase conjugation in the ocean: Experimental demonstration of an acoustic time-reversal mirror , 1998 .

[6]  Peter L. Nielsen,et al.  Combination of Acoustics with High Resolution Oceanography , 2002 .

[7]  Milica Stojanovic,et al.  Recent advances in high-speed underwater acoustic communications , 1996 .

[8]  John G. Proakis,et al.  Digital Communications , 1983 .

[9]  T. C. Yang Temporal resolutions of time-reversal and passive-phase conjugation for underwater acoustic communications , 2003 .

[10]  T. C. Yang Temporal fluctuations of broadband channel impulse functions and underwater acoustic communications at 2-5 kHz/sup 1/ , 2002, OCEANS '02 MTS/IEEE.

[11]  T.C. Yang,et al.  Performance limitations of joint adaptive channel equalizer and phase locking loop in random oceans: initial test with data , 2000, OCEANS 2000 MTS/IEEE Conference and Exhibition. Conference Proceedings (Cat. No.00CH37158).

[12]  S. Haykin,et al.  Adaptive Filter Theory , 1986 .

[13]  Sergio M. Jesus,et al.  UNDERWATER ACOUSTIC COMMUNICATION USING A "VIRTUAL" ELECTRONIC TIME-REVERSAL MIRROR APPROACH , 2000 .

[14]  James A. Ritcey,et al.  Spatial diversity equalization applied to underwater communications , 1994 .

[15]  D. Dowling Acoustic pulse compression using passive phase‐conjugate processing , 1994 .

[16]  W. Kuperman,et al.  Underwater acoustic communication using time reversal , 2001, MTS/IEEE Oceans 2001. An Ocean Odyssey. Conference Proceedings (IEEE Cat. No.01CH37295).

[17]  Christopher D. Jones,et al.  Underwater acoustic communication by passive-phase conjugation: theory and experimental results , 2001 .