Chi-Square Distribution Matching in

Unambiguous Sine-BOC and

Multiplexed-BOC Acquisition
Md. Farzan Samad and Elena Simona Lohan
Department of Communications Engineering, Tampere University of Technology
P.O.Box 553, FIN-33101, Finland;
farzan.samad@uta.fi; elena-simona.lohan@tut.fi
BIOGRAPHY
Md. Farzan Samad obtained the M.Sc. degree in
Communications Engineering from Tampere
University of Technology (TUT), Finland, in
September 2009. Currently, he is a Ph.D. student in the
Tampere Unit for Computer-Human Interaction
(TAUCHI) unit in the Department of Computer
Sciences at the University of Tampere (UTA), Finland.
His research interests include satellite positioning
techniques and mobile haptics.
Elena Simona Lohan obtained the M.Sc. degree in
Electrical Engineering from the Politehnica University
of Bucharest, Romania, in 1997, the D.E.A. degree in
Econometrics, at Ecole Polytechnique, Paris, France, in
1998, and the Ph.D. degree in Telecommunications
from Tampere University of Technology. In 2007 she
was nominated as a Docent in the field of Wireless
communication techniques for personal navigation.
Since November 2003, Simona Lohan has been
working as a Senior Researcher at TUT and she has
been acting as a group leader for the mobile and
satellite-based positioning activities at the Department
of Communications Engineering. Her research interests
include satellite positioning techniques, CDMA signal
processing, and wireless channel modeling and
estimation. She has been also involved with the EU
FP6 project GREAT and EU FP7 project GRAMMAR.
ABSTRACT
Multiplexed Binary-Offset-Carrier (MBOC) modulated
signals are the main candidates for the future Galileo
Open Services (OS) and modernized GPS L1C signals.
The Autocorrelation Functions (ACFs) of MBOC
signals have additional lobes compared to the ACFs of
classical GPS signals (which employ BPSK
modulation) and the presence of these lobes introduce
new challenges in the signal acquisition process.
Several unambiguous acquisition techniques have been
previously proposed in order to eliminate or diminish
the sidelobes and enhance the acquisition process. The
purpose of this paper is to model theoretically, via chi-
square distributions, the test statistics of both
unambiguous sine BOC-and MBOC modulated signals.
The parameter distribution fitting is based on
simulations and the resulting theoretical model is
compared with the simulation results, in terms of
detection probabilities.
INTRODUCTION
Sine-BOC and MBOC-modulated signals have a
narrower main lobe of their ACFs, compared to the
BPSK-modulated signal. This feature is known to
improve the accuracy in the delay tracking process
(Hein et al, 2006), (Avila-Rodriguez et al, 2006).
However, additional peaks and some gaps or deep
fades appear within 1 chip interval around the
maximum correlation peak, due to sine and
multiplexed BOC modulation. As a result, the ACF
becomes ambiguous (i.e., having extra correlation
peaks and some low values in the ACF within 1 chip
interval). In order to avoid the ambiguities of the
Absolute value of ACF (AACF), several unambiguous
or BPSK like acquisition techniques have been
proposed in (Martin et al, 2003), (Heiries et al, 2004),
(Fishman et al, 2000), (Betz et al, 2004), (Lohan,
2006), (Lohan et al, 2008). These unambiguous
acquisition techniques are denoted as: Betz and
Fishman (B&F), Martin and Heiries (M&H) and
Unsuppressed Adjacent Lobes (UAL) methods,
respectively. A theoretical analysis of the ambiguous
and B&F unambiguous acquisition in the context of
sine BOC modulation has been presented in (Lohan,
2006), based on the statistical modelling of the
decision variables in the acquisition process. The
purpose of this paper is to extend the analysis
presented in (Lohan, 2006) to the other above-
mentioned unambiguous methods (i.e., M&H and
UAL) and to MBOC modulation as well. The
deterioration factors for modelling the variance and the
non-centrality parameters in the acquisition process are
estimated here for both sine BOC and MBOC
modulations and for all 4 acquisition methods: one
ambiguous (the classical one) and 3 unambiguous
(B&F, M&H and UAL).
The matching between theory and simulations is
validated via detection probability curves versus
Carrier-to-Noise Ratio (CNR). The underlying
theoretical model of M&H and UAL unambiguous
acquisition methods has never been addressed in the
literature so far to the best of the authors knowledge.
Also, the analysis of chi-square based statistical model
of B&F method has been limited only to sine BOC
cases so far (Lohan, 2006). The theoretical model of
the classical ambiguous acquisition has been however
studied before for both sine BOC and MBOC cases in
(Schmid et al, 2004), (Bastide et al, 2002), (Dovis et al,
2008), (Borio, 2008), (Borio et al, 2008) and our
results regarding the ambiguous case are comparable
with those reported in (Dovis et al, 2008).
II. SINE BOC AND MULTIPLEXED BOC
MODULATIONS
Sine BOC modulation (referred in what follows simply
by BOC) is a square sub-carrier modulation (Betz,
1999), where a pseudorandom (PRN) signal at chip
rate f
c
is multiplied by a rectangular sub-carrier of
frequency f
sc
, which splits the signal spectrum into two
parts (Barker et al, 2000), (Betz, 1999), (Lohan et al,
2007a). BOC modulation provides a simple and
effective way of moving the signal energy away from
band center, offering a high degree of spectral
separation from conventional Binary Phase Shift
Keying (BPSK) signals, whose energy is concentrated
near band center. The resulting split-spectrum signal
effectively enables frequency sharing, while providing
attributes that include simple implementation, good
spectral efficiency, high accuracy, and enhanced
multipath resolution (Betz, 1999).
BOC modulation generalizes the Manchester line
coding scheme to more than one zero crossing per
spreading symbol or chip (Raghavan et al, 2004),
(Saltzberg, 1990). The BOC modulated signal x( t) is
the convolution between a BOC waveform S
B0C
( t) and
a modulating waveform J( t) , as follows (Lohan et al,
2007a):
x( t) = ` b
n
`C
k,n
S
B0C
(t -nI
sym
- kI
c
)
S
F
k=1
+
n=-
= S
B0C
( t) ( ` `b
n
c
k,n
o(t -nI
sym
-kI
c
)
S
F
k=1
+
n=-
S
B0C
(t) (J( t) ( 1 )
where is the convolution operator, J( t) is the
spread data sequence, b
n
is the nth complex data
symbol (in case of a pilot channel, it is equal to 1),
I
sym
is the symbol period, c
k,n
is the kth chip
corresponding to the nth symbol, I
c
= 1/f
c
is the chip
period, S
F
is the spreading factor
(S
P
= I
sym
/ I
c
) , and o(t) is the Dirac pulse. The
signals used in GPS and Galileo are wideband signals.
Therefore in eq. (1), we assumed to have wideband
data, that is, spread via a PRN sequence.
MBOC modulation places a small amount of code
power at higher frequencies, which improves the code
tracking performance (Hein et al, 2006), (GJU, 2006),
(Avila-Rodriguez et al, 2006). The Power Spectral
Density (PSD) of MBOC(6,1,1/11) is a combination of
BOC(1,1) spectrum and BOC(6,1) spectra. It is
possible to use a number of different time waveforms
to generate MBOC(6,1,1/11) spectrum, which gives
some implementation flexibility.
Different time waveforms can be used to produce the
MBOC(6,1,1/11) PSD. The two main ones are: the
Composite BOC (CBOC) and the Time Multiplexed
BOC (TMBOC).
The CBOC method is based on a weighted sum (or
difference) of BOC(1,1) and BOC(6,1)- modulated
code symbols (Lohan et al, 2007b). The weighting
factors w
1
and w
2
are chosen such that w
1
2
+ w
2
2
= 1 .
There are 3 proposed implementations of CBOC:
CBOC(+), CBOC(-) and CBOC(+/-). The last one is a
combination of the 2 previous ones, i.e., we use
CBOC(+) for even chips and CBOC(-) for odd chips
(Avila-Rodriguez et al, 2006). In TMBOC, the whole
signal is divided into blocks of N code symbols (Hein
et al, 2006). Out of N code symbols, M <N symbols are
BOC(1,1)-modulated and the remaining N M code
symbols are BOC(6,1) modulated. An example of
CBOC(+/-) and TMBOC modulated waveforms,
together with PRN sequence before modulation is
shown in Fig 1.
III. UNAMBIGUOUS ACQUISITION METHODS
Betz & al. (Betz et al, 2004), (Barker et al, 2000) and
Fishman & al. (Fishman et al, 2000) introduced the
Sideband (SB) techniques, which are denoted here
via B&F methods (after the initials of the first authors).
In B&F methods, the receiver selects only the first or
the first 2 main spectral lobes of the received signal
and of the reference code, respectively and it filters out
the remaining frequency content. In Single Sideband
(SSB) B&F method, only one of the main lobes (either
upper or lower) is considered when forming the
decision statistic. The Dual SB (DSB) B&F method
considers both the upper and lower main spectral lobes.
The reference code is the BOC- or MBOC-modulated
code sequence. The SSB B&F method suffers from
higher non-coherent correlation losses than the DSB
B&F method (Fishman et al, 2000).
Fig. 1. A snapshot of PRN sequence (upper plot) and
of CBOC(+/-) (middle plot) and TMBOC (lower plot)-
modulated signals.
Martin & al. (Martin et al, 2003) and Heiries & al.
(Heiries et al, 2004) proposed the BPSK like
techniques, which are denoted here as M&H methods.
In M&H methods, the filter bandwidth includes the
two principal lobes of the spectrum and all the
secondary lobes between the principal lobes (if any). A
modification to the original M&H algorithm of
(Heiries et al, 2004) was proposed in (Lohan et al,
2008), (Burian et al, 2006b), (Burian et al, 2006a) and
this is the approach used here (still referred to as M&H
for simplicity sake). In M&H, the reference code is not
the filtered BOC- or MBOC-modulated code, but the
BPSK-modulated code sequence, held at the same rate
as BOC or MBOC signal.
In Unsuppressed Adjacent Lobes (UAL) method
proposed and analyzed in (Lohan et al, 2008), (Burian
et al, 2006b), (Burian et al, 2006a), the filtering part is
completely removed. Therefore, the adjacent lobes of
the main lobes are fully unsuppressed in UAL and they
may affect the performance of the acquisition block
(Lohan et al, 2008). The advantage is that the
complexity of the receiver part is reduced, as no extra
filters are required. As for M&H case, the reference
code in UAL method is the BPSK-modulated PRN
sequence of 1, held at BOC or MBOC rate.
A detailed presentation of the unambiguous methods
implementation for MBOC waveforms can be found in
(Samad et al, 2009).
The normalized AACFs for ambiguous and the non
ambiguous BOC and MBOC (TMBOC
implementation) algorithms are shown in Fig. 2. From
Fig. 2, it can be clearly seen that the ambiguities of the
AACF disappear after unambiguous processing.
IV. CHI-SQUARE BASED MODELS
In signal acquisition, after the reference signal (filtered
or not) is correlated with the received signal (filtered or
not), coherent integration on N
c
ms is performed, then
the envelope or squared envelope of the coherent
correlation is taken and the resulting waveform is
further non-coherently integrated over Nnc blocks. The
output of non-coherent integration forms the decision
statistic Z, which obviously depends on the delay error
A and Doppler error A

. In static channels, Z is a
central chi-square distribution in an incorrect bin and a
noncentral chi-square distribution in a correct bin
(Heiries et al, 2004), (Fischer et al, 2004), (Schmid et
al, 2004), (Bastide et al, 2002), (Lohan, 2006), (Borio,
2008), (Borio et al, 2008). This is due to the fact that
the output of the coherent integration is a complex
Gaussian variable, due to the additive white noise real
and imaginary parts. The degrees of freedom of the
chi-square distributions is 2Nnc and the variance of
such distributions is (Lohan, 2006)
o
2
=
o
nb
2
(N
c
N
nc
)
( 2 )
where N
c
is the coherent integration time, N
nc
is the
non-coherent integration length and o
nb
2
is the
narrowband noise power spectral density (double-
sided), which is related to the CNR as follows (Bastide
et al, 2002)
o
nb
2
= E
b
1 0
-
CNR[ dB-Hz] -30
10
( 3 )
where E
b
is the signal energy.
Fig. 2. Normalized AACFs for DSB correlation
methods. Upper plot: BOC(1,1). Lower plot: MBOC
(TMBOC case).
We consider first the ambiguous case (i.e., no filtering
or shifting of the received signal and reference signal,
only plain correlation between the two).In this case, the
square-root of the non-centrality parameter of the
non-central chi-square distribution is a function J() of
the delay and Doppler errors as follows (Heiries et al,
2004), (Bastide et al, 2002), (Lohan, 2006), (Borio,
2008), (Borio et al, 2008):
z = .E
b
J(A , A

)
= .E
b
|R( A )
sIn ( nA]
D

(At)
cch
)
nA]
D
( At)
cch
| ( 4 )
where (At)
coh
= N
c
S
P
I
c
and R( A ) is the auto-
correlation value at delay error A for the BOC- or
MBOC-modulated PRN code.
Now, for the unambiguous methods, we observe that
the use of a linear filter on a complex Gaussian
distribution preserves the same distribution at the
output (Lohan, 2006). Therefore, the test statistics of
B&F, UAL and M&H methods can also be modeled
via chi-square (central and non-central) distributions.
For unambiguous algorithms, there are some additional
deterioration factors in the variance and non-centrality
parameters, denoted here via x
c
2 and x
x
, respectively.
These parameters account for the correlation losses and
filtering effects in the unambiguous SSB and DSB
processing. Therefore, the variance and non-centrality
parameters of each of the acquisition methods studied
here can be modeled according to table I. From table I,
it can be seen that the degrees of freedom for DSB
method is 4Nnc, because, before the non-coherent
integration process, there are 4 real Gaussian variables,
coming from the real and imaginary parts of the noise
in the upper and the lower bands, respectively (Fischer
et al, 2004).
TABLE I
PARAMETERS OF THE CENTRAL AND NON-CENTRAL
CHI-SQUARE DISTRIBUTIONS OF THE TEST STATISTIC Z
IN AMBIGUOUS (aBOC/aMBOC) AND UNAMBIGUOUS
ACQUISITION.
Method Variance o
2
Square root of non-
centrality parameter
(if correct bin)
Degrees
of
freedo
m
aBOC/
aMBO
C
o
nb
2
( N
c
N
nc
)

.E
b
J(A , A

)
2 N
nc
SSB
B&F,
UAL,
M&H
x
c
2o
nb
2
( N
c
N
nc
) x
x
.E
b
J(A , A

)
2 N
nc
DSB
B&F,
UAL,
M&H
x
c
2o
nb
2
( N
c
N
nc
) x
x
.2 E
b
J(A , A

)
4 N
nc
V. DISTRIBUTION MATCHING RESULTS
The values of x
c
2 and x
x
depend on the type of the
acquisition algorithm and on the modulation types
(BOC or MBOC). For ambiguous acquisition, there is
no deterioration (i.e., the ambiguous case is taken as
reference: x
c
2
,uB0CuMB0C
= 1 and x
x
,uB0CuMB0C
= 1 ).
We noticed that the values for these deterioration
factors for unambiguous cases are different for FFT
and for time-domain based correlation. Via extensive
simulation runs and distribution matching according to
minimum Kullback-Leibler divergence (KL) criterion
(Kullback et al, 1951), we found the BOC deterioration
factors from Tables II and III for time-domain based
correlation and FFT based correlation, respectively.
The MBOC deterioration factors are shown in Tables
IV and V for time-domain based correlation and FFT
based correlation, respectively. The simulations were
carried out for an oversampling factor, N
s
= 6 . Also,
KL value is shown as a measure of the fitting between
theory and simulations. A correct bin is a time-
frequency bin where signal is present and an incorrect
bin is a time-frequency bin where only noise is present.
From tables II, III, IV, V, it can be observed that for
B&F method, x
c
2 and x
x
values are related to the
power per main lobe (P
mI
). The P
mI
of BOC(1,1)
signal is around 0.427 of the total power, if the total
power is normalized to 1. And for MBOC, the P
mI
value is around 0.3896.
TABLE II
UNAMBIGUOUS BOC METHODS (TIME DOMAIN BASED
CORRELATION).
Method x
c
2 x
x
KL
(incorrect
bins)
KL
(correct
bins)
B&F 0.427 0.444 0.0028 0.0180
UAL 1 0.655 0.0020 0.0215
M&H 1 0.655 0.0147 0.0196
TABLE III
UNAMBIGUOUS BOC METHODS (FFT CORRELATION).
Method x
c
2 x
x
KL
(incorrect
bins)
KL
(correct
bins)
B&F 0.427 0.427 0.0019 0.0498
UAL 1 0.620 0.0021 0.022
M&H 1 0.616 0.0139 0.0378
TABLE IV
UNAMBIGUOUS MBOC METHODS (TIME DOMAIN BASED
CORRELATION).
Method x
c
2 x
x
KL
(incorrect
bins)
KL
(correct
bins)
B&F 0.3896 0.3561 0.0248 0.0129
UAL 1 0.527 0.0021 0.0157
M&H 1 0.531 0.0171 0.0097
TABLE V
UNAMBIGUOUS MBOC METHODS (FFT CORRELATION).
Method x
c
2 x
x
KL
(incorrect
bins)
KL
(correct
bins)
B&F 0.3896 0.3896 0.0025 0.0175
UAL 1 0.590 0.0019 0.0377
M&H 1 0.585 0.0156 0.0379
The parameter values from tables II, III, IV and V can
be explained by the presence of some correlation losses
in unambiguous approaches. These correlation losses
are associated with the filtering and with the
modification of the reference code (which can be seen
as a decrease of the non-centrality parameter), together
with some decrease in the noise variance (due to the
filtering of the signal and noise).
Examples of the simulation-based normalized
histogram and the theoretical chi-square PDF for
correct and incorrect bins are shown in Fig. 3. Similar
good matching has been observed for various CNR
levels, coherent and non-coherent integration times,
and for both FFT and time domain based correlations.
Fig. 3. Matching between theoretical and simulation-
based distributions of the test statistic Z. Upper plot:
BOC(1,1) B&F method, CNR = 25 dB-Hz, N
c
= 2 0 ,
N
nc
= 2 , Time domain correlation. Lower plot: MBOC
UAL method, CNR = 30 dB-Hz, N
c
= 1 0 , N
nc
= 3 ,
FFT correlation.
Fig. 4 compares the theoretical P
d
values with the P
d
values from simulations. The upper plot of Fig. 4
shows the comparison for BOC(1,1) modulation,
whereas the lower plot shows for MBOC modulation.
In the simulations, N
c
= 2 0 ms was used, followed by
N
nc
= 2 blocks. The oversampling factor N
s
= 6 and
the time-bin step At
bn
= 0 . 5 were considered. From
the comparison between theoretical and simulated
results, it can be said that the theoretical values match
quite well the simulated values. Similar good
matchings were observed for various N
c
, N
nc
and At
bn
values and for both DSB and SSB methods.
Fig. 5 compares time-domain based correlation with
FFT based correlation of the theoretical model of both
BOC(1,1) (upper plot) and MBOC (lower plot)
modulations. The simulations were carried out with
N
c
= 1 0 ms, N
nc
= 3 blocks, N
s
= 6 and At
bn
= 0 . 5
chips. From Fig. 5, it can be observed that the time
domain correlations give slightly better P
d
values than
FFT correlations and the performance difference is not
significant. Other values of N
c
, N
nc
and At
bn
gave
similar types of results.
Fig. 4. Comparison between theoretical and simulation
based results. Upper plot: BOC(1,1); Lower plot:
CBOC(+/-).
VI. CONCLUSIONS
In this paper we presented a theoretical model, based
on chi square distributions, for the unambiguous
acquisition of split spectrum signals, such as sineBOC
and MBOC signals used in Galileo system. The
distribution matching was based on extensive
simulation runs and on Kullback-Leibler divergence
criterion, used to test the similarity between theoretical
and measured distribution. We also verified the
obtained parameters via comparing the simulation
curves with the theoretical curves of detection
probability at various CNRs. Based on the theoretical
model it can be seen that the FFT-based correlation is
slightly worse than the time-domain correlation (i.e.,
slightly lower signal energy after unambiguous
processing) and that MBOC unambiguous processing
is slightly worse than the sine BOC(1,1) unambiguous
processing. Based on the detection probability curves,
we can also state that the unambiguous processing,
especially when used in dual sideband configuration,
offers a greater advantage over the ambiguous
processing for both sine BOC and MBOC cases.
Fig. 5. Comparison between time domain and FFT
based correlations of the theoretical model. Upper plot:
BOC(1,1); Lower plot: CBOC(+/-).
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This work was carried out in the project Future GNSS
Applications and Techniques (FUGAT) funded by the
Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and
Innovation (Tekes). This work was also supported by
the Academy of Finland.
REFERENCES
Avila-Rodriguez, J. and Wallner, S. and Hein, G. and
Rebeyrol, E. and Julien, O. and Macabiau, C. and Ries,
L. and DeLatour, A. and Lestarquit, L. and Issler, J.
(2006). CBOC -An Implementation of MBOC, in
First CNES Workshop on Galileo Signals and Signal
Processing, (Toulouse, France), October 2006.
Barker, C. B. C. and Betz, J. W. and Clark, J. E. and
Correia, J. T. and Gillis, J. T. and Lazar, S. and
Rehborn, L. K. A. and Straton, J. R. (2000). Overview
of the GPS M Code Signal, in Proc. of Intitute of
Navigation National Tech. Meeting: Navigating into
the New Millennium, pp. 542549, January 2000.
Bastide, F. and Julien, O. and Macabiau, C. and
Roturier, B. (2002). Analysis of L5/E5 acquisition,
tracking and data demodulation thresholds, in Proc. of
IONGPS, (Portland, OR), pp. 21962207, September
2002.
Betz, J. and Capozza, P. (2004). System for direct
acquisition of received signals, in US Patent
Application Publication, (US), April 2004.
Betz, J. W. (1999) The Offset Carrier Modulation for
GPS modernization, in Proc. of ION Technical
Meeting, pp. 639648, June 1999.
Borio, D. (2008). A Statistical Theory for GNSS Signal
Acquisition. PhD thesis, Dipartimento di Elettronica,
Politecnico di Torino, Italy, 2008.
Borio, D. and ODriscoll, C. and Lachapelle, G.
(2008). Composite gnss signal acquisition over
multiple code periods, accepted for publication in
IEEE Trans. on Aerospace and Electronic Systems,
2008.
Burian, A. and Lohan, E. S. and Lehtinen, V. and
Renfors, M. (2006a). Complexity Considerations for
Unambiguous Acquisition of Galileo Signals, in 3
rd
Workshop on Positioning, Navigation and
Communication 2006 (WPNC 2006), (Hannover,
Germany), pp. 6573, March 2006.
Burian, A. and Lohan, E. S. and Renfors, M. (2006b).
BPSK-like Methods for Hybrid-Search Acquisition of
Galileo Signals, in IEEE International Conference on
Communications (ICC 2006), (Istanbul, Turkey),
pp. 52115216, June 2006.
Dovis, F. and Presti, L. and Fantino, M. and
Mulassano, P. and Godet, J. (2008). Comparison
between Galileo CBOC Candidates and BOC(1,1) in
Terms of Detection Performance, in International
Journal of Navigation and Observation, 2008.
Fischer, S. and Guerin, A. and Berberich, S. (2004).
Acquisition concepts for Galileo BOC(2,2) signals in
consideration of hardware limitations, in Proc. of
Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC), vol. 5, pp.
28512856, May 2004.
Fishman, P. and Betz, J. (2000). Predicting
performances of direct acquisition for the M-code
signal, in ION-NMT, 2000.
GJU (2006) Galileo joint undertaking - gps-galileo
working group a (wga) recommendations on l1 os/lic
optimization, March 2006.
Hein, G. W. and Avila-Rodriguez, J. A. and Wallner,
S. and Pratt, A. R. and Owen, J. and Issler, J. L. and
Betz, J. W. and Hegarty, C. J. and Lenahan, L. S. and
Rushanan, J. J. and Kraay, A. L. and Stansell, T. A.
(2006). MBOC: The new optimized spreading
modulation recommended for galileo l1 os and gps
l1c, in Position, Location, And Navigation
Symposium, 2006 IEEE/ION, pp. 883 892,April 2006.
Heiries, V. and Oviras, D. and Ries, L. and Calmettes,
V. (2004). Analysis of non ambiguous BOC signal
acquisition performances, in ION-GNSS, (Long
Beach, CA, US), Septempber 2004.
Kullback , S. and Leibler, R. (1951).On information
and sufficiency, Annals Math. Statist., vol. 22, pp. 79
86, 1951.
Lohan, E. S. (2006). Statistical analysis of BPSK-like
techniques for the acquisition of Galileo signals, AIAA
Journal of Aerospace Computing, Information, and
Communication, vol. 3, pp. 234243, May 2006.
Lohan, E. S. and Burian, A. and Renfors, M. (2008).
Low-complexity acquisition methods for split-
spectrum CDMA signals, Wiley International Journal
of Satellite Communications, 2008.
Lohan, E. S. and Lakhzouri, A. and Renfors, M.
(2007a). Binary-Offset-Carrier Modulation
Techniques With Applications in Satellite Navigation
Systems, Wireless Communications & Mobile
Computing, vol. 7, pp. 767 779, August 2007.
Lohan, E. S. and Renfors, M. (2007b). Correlation
Properties of Multiplexed- BOC (MBOC) Modulation
for Future GNSS Signals, in European Wireless
Conference, (Paris, France), April 2007.
Martin, N. and Leblond, V. and Guillotel, G. and
Heiries, V. (2003). BOC (x,y) signal acquisition
techniques and performances, in ION-GPS2003,
(Portland, OR, US), Septempber 2003.
Raghavan, S. and Holmes, J. (2004). Modeling and
Simulation of Mixed Modulation Formats for
Improved CDMA Bandwidth Efficiency, in Proc. of
Vehicular Technology Conference, pp. 42904295,
2004.
Saltzberg, B. R. (1990). An Improved Manchester
Code Receiver, in IEEE International Conference on
Communications, vol. 2, pp. 698702, April 1990.
Samad, M. and Lohan, E. (2009). Mboc performance
in unambiguous acquisition, in ENC-GNSS, (Napoli,
Italy), May 2009.
Schmid, A. and Neubauer, A. (2004). Theoretical
minimal bounds for single shot measurement
thresholds of the Galileo and GPS open signals in
multipath fading environments, in CDROM Proc. Of
European Navigation Conference ENC-GNSS, 2004.