Signal Processing 111 (2015) 222229

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Signal Processing
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/sigpro

Fractional time delay estimation algorithm based

on the maximum correntropy criterion and the Lagrange FDF
Yu Ling a,b, Qiu Tian-shuang a,n, Luan Shengyang a
a
b

Faculty of Electronic Information and Electrical Engineering, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian 116024, China
School of Electronic & Information Engineering, Liaoning University of Technology, Jinzhou 112021, China

a r t i c l e in f o

abstract

Article history:
Received 25 August 2014
Received in revised form
14 December 2014
Accepted 15 December 2014
Available online 24 December 2014

In this paper, a novel algorithm for fractional time delay estimation is proposed. It is based
on the maximum correntropy criterion and the Lagrange fractional delay filter (FDF). The
instantaneous correntropy is introduced to measure the similarity between received
signals and estimated ones in the proposed algorithm. It leads to an effective performance
under both Gaussian and impulsive noises. The performances, including the convergence
of the algorithm and the variance of the time delay estimation, are theoretically analyzed.
Simulations demonstrate that the time delay estimation precision of the proposed
algorithm is higher than that utilizing the mixed modulated Lagrange explicit time delay
estimation (MMLETDE) especially under low generalized signal-to-noise ratio (GSNR).
& 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords:
Fractional time delay estimation
Correntropy
Maximum correntropy criterion
Lagrange FDF

1. Introduction
Fractional time delay estimation (referred to as FDE), also
known as subsample time delay estimation, is widely
utilized in high precision location (such as the radar [1,2],
the medical auxiliary diagnostic [3], the satellite navigation
[4] and the fault location [5]) and the time delay compensation (such as the digital pre-distortion [6,7], sensors calibration [8] and the beam forming [9]).
Well-known fractional time delay estimation algorithms
include the interpolation algorithm [10], the Hilbert transform
based algorithm [11], the explicit adaptation of time delay
(ETDE) algorithm [12], etc. The interpolation algorithm interpolates some approximate values based on a fitting function
between the estimated adjacent integral time delays to
estimate the fractional time delay. Although it has low
calculation complexity, the accuracy of the interpolation
algorithm is not sufficient for high precision applications.
The Hilbert transform based algorithm is fast since it consists
of only one scalar multiplication, but it is only applicable to
n

Corresponding author. Tel.: 86 411 84709573;

fax: 86 411 84709573.
E-mail address: qiutsh@dlut.edu.cn (Q. Tian-shuang).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sigpro.2014.12.018
0165-1684/& 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

the time delay estimation for narrowband signals. As a classic

iterative FDE method, the ETDE algorithm replaces the FIR
coefficients with a truncated sinc function to obtain an explicit
time delay estimation expression in the iterative adaptive
process. But the truncated sinc fractional filter has been
proved to be a poor fractional delay filter (FDF) due to its
considerable pass-band ripple [13]. The mixed modulated
Lagrange ETDE (referred to as MMLETDE) [14] is another
improved FDE algorithm. It replaces the truncated sinc fractional filter of ETDE with the Lagrange FDF and has better FDE
precision. However, both algorithms rely heavily on Gaussian
noise assumption, which could not always be satisfied.
In this paper, a novel algorithm for fractional time delay
estimation based on the maximum correntropy criterion
and the Lagrange FDF is proposed, which is referred to as
MCCL. It has better accuracy under both Gaussian and
impulsive noises, especially when the GSNR is low.
2. Mixed modulated Lagrange ETDE algorithm
Suppose the tunable finite impulse response delayer
(TFD) is maximally flat at 0, where is the normalized angular frequency. The coefficients of TFD can be
recognized as the Lagrange interpolation coefficients [15].

Y. Ling et al. / Signal Processing 111 (2015) 222229

The coefficients of the Nth-order Lagrange interpolator are

shown as follows:
0

hDk
^ n

M2
^ i
D
;

ni
i  M1

 M1 r n r M2

ia n

^ lies in the range ( 0.5,0.5), M1 M2 N/2 if N is

where D
an even integer, and M1 (N  1)/2, M2 (N 1)/2 for an
0
odd N, N Z1. The superscript for hDk
^ n in (1) is merely to
emphasize the maximum flatness at 0 0. This maximally
flat region can be shifted to another frequency 0 by
applying a complex modulation. The modulated coefficients are
j0 n  Dk
0
hDk
hDk
^ n
^ n e
^

x(k) and y(k), as two received signals, are modeled as

xk sk w1 k

yk sk D w2 k

where k is the time index, s(k) is the original source signal,

either wideband or narrowband. D is the fractional delay
which lies in the range ( 0.5,0.5). Both w1(k) and w2(k)
are symmetry -stable distribution (SS) noises with the
location parameter a0.
function at time k between y(k) and

The error

^
x k  Dk
is
ek yk 

M2

n  M1

hDk
^ nxk  n

Taking the derivative to the instantaneous squared

error |e(k)|2 with respect to the variable delay estimate
^
Dk,
we get the iterative equation of the MMLETDE as
follows:
(
)



M2
n
^
^
^
Dk 1 Dk 2 Re e k g n  Dk xk  n
n  M1

6
where



^
g n  Dk
gv ej0 v f v  j0 sin cv

sin cv
cos v  sin cv

^
v
Dk

1
V^ L; X; Y xk yk
Lk1

10

It is proved in [16] that in adaptive signal processing if

the error obeys the SS distribution with the location
parameter a 0, the maximum correntropy of the error
leads to the minimum power of the error. This is called
maximum correntropy criterion.

3.2. MCCL algorithm


^
The delayed signal x k  Dk
is obtained by the
Lagrange FDF as follows:



^
x k  Dk

M2

n  M1

0
hDk
^ nxk  n

11

h
2
The instantaneous
correntropy ec k V yk; M
i
n  M1
0
nxk
n
serves
as
the
error
function
in
the
MCCL
hDk
^
"
#
ec k V yk;

M2

n  M1

0
1
B
p exp@ 
2

0
hDk
^ nxk  n



M2
yk  n


 !
ek2
1
p exp 
2 2
2

2 1

0
h
nxk

n
 C
^
 M 1 Dk
A
2 2

12

2
where ek yk  M
^ nxk n.
n  M1 hDk
The iterative formula of the MCCL is derived as follows:


en kec k
^ 1 Dk
^
Dk
c
13
^
Dk

where
!


enc kec k
ec k
2Re enc k
^
^
Dk
Dk

!

1
ek
2Re ec kec k  2 ek
^

Dk
!
2
2
ek
14
 2 ec k Re ek
^

Dk



2
^
^
Since ek=Dk
M
n  M 1 g n  Dk xk  n in
 n

^
[14], the ec kec k =Dk
can be written as
!

2
 n




M2
 2ec k
ec kec k
^
Re
ek

g
n

Dk
xk

n

^
2
Dk
n  M1
n

3. MCCL algorithm
3.1. Correntropy and maximum correntropy criterion
Correntropy [16] proposed by Weifeng Liu et al. in 2007
is a theory for non-Gaussian signal processing. The cross
correntropy is a generalized similarity measurement
between two arbitrary scalar random variables X and Y
defined by
V X; Y E X Y 


L
data xk; yk k 1 are available, the sample estimator of
correntropy is shown as

and f(v) is defined in

f v

223

9
p
2
2
where X  Y 1= 2 exp  jX Y j =2 , and 40
is the kernel size. In practice, since only finite numbers of

15

^
where g n  Dk
is defined in (7). Using (13) and (15), the
iterative formula of the MCCL can be deduced as
!



M2
2
2
^
^ 1 Dk
^
xk n
Dk
 2 ec k Re ek g n  Dk

n  M1

16

224

Y. Ling et al. / Signal Processing 111 (2015) 222229

4. Performance analysis

4.1. Convergence analysis of the MCCL algorithm

ek yk 

M2

n  M1

hDk
^ nxk n





^
^
sk D w2 k s k  Dk
w1 k  Dk

17

M2

n  M1


^
g n  Dk
xk  n

M2

n  M1

n  M1


^
g n  Dk
xk  n T 1 T 2 T 3 T 4

19

where



^
T 1 sk D  sk  Dk

^
T 2 w2 k  w1 k  Dk

M2

n  M1

M2

n  M1


^
T 3  sk  D  sk  Dk


^
g n  Dk
sk n



^
g n  Dk
sk  n

M2

n  M1

20


^
g n  Dk
w1 k  n
22


^
T 4  w2 k w1 k  Dk

M2

n  M1


^
g n  Dk
w1 k n
23

Thus,
h
i
h
i 2 h
i
2
^ 1 E Dk
^
E Dk
 2 E ec k ReT 1 T 2 T 3 T 4

24
According to the properties of the correntropy [16],
"
#
M2
1
0
0 oec k V yk; hDk
25
^ nxk n r p
2
n  M1
p
ec(k) reaches its maximum value 1= 2 if and only if
0
M2
yk n  M1 hDk
nxk n.
^
Thus Eq. (24) can be rewritten as
h
i
h
i 22
^ 1 E Dk
^
E Dk
 2 EReT 1 T 2 T 3 T 4 
26

p i
where A 0; 1= 2 .
Since the signal and the noises are uncorrelated, we
have both ReET 2 0 and ReET 3 0. ReET 1 is
evaluated as follows:

M2

n  M1


^
g n  Dk
sk n

M2

n  M1

sk  n


h



i
^
^
^
j0 sin c n  Dk
ej0 n  Dk f n  Dk

n  M1

"

M2

n  M1

^
^
j0 ej0 n  Dk sin cn  Dksk
 n

^
^
ej0 n  Dk sin cn  Dksk
 n
^
Dk

M2

n  M1
M2

n  M1

^
j0 n  Dk
^
sin cn  Dke
sk n

i
^
^
ej0 n  Dk sin cn  Dksk
 n


3
^
^
ej0 n  Dk sin c n  Dk
sk n
5

4
^
Dk
n  M1
2

27

Since






^
j0 n  Dk
2
^
^
M
 s k  Dk
, Eq.
n  M1 sk n sin c n  Dk e
(27) is simplified as



^



s k  Dk
M2
^
28
g n  Dk sk n 
^
Dk
n  M1

21

^
sin cn  Dksk
 n
^
Dk

M2

We get
M2

M2

 j0


^
g n  Dk
sk  n w1 k  n

18

ek

n  M1

j0

Since

ej0 n  Dk

Substituting (3) and (4) into (5), we get

"

M2

Assuming sk Akej0 k , we get


^
s k Dk
^
Dk


^



A k Dk
^
^
^
 j0 A k  Dk
ej0 k  Dk ej0 k  Dk
^
Dk

29
For a narrowband signal, the envelope A(k) varies
^
insensitively to Dk,
and (30) is the approximate equation
of (29).



^



s k  Dk
^
^
ej0 k  Dk
  j0 A k  Dk
^
Dk



^
30
 j0 s k  Dk
So we obtain
M2

n  M1





^
^
g n  Dk
sk n   j0 s k  Dk

31

Substituting (31) into (20) and taking expectation on

both sides of (20), we get





^
ET 1  E 2s j0 1  ej0 Dk  D
32



^

where

2s is the
 signal power. Since sin 0 Dk
^
^
D  0 Dk
 D for small Dk
 D, the real part of (32) is
h



i
^
D
ReET 1 E 2s 0 sin 0 Dk
h
i
^
 D
33
 E 2s 20 Dk
ReET 4 is evaluated as follows:
" "





^
w1 k  Dk
w2 k

ReET 4 Re E

" "
Re E

M2

n  M1

M2

n  M1


^
g n  Dk
w1 k  n

##

##







0
^
^
hDk
n f n  Dk
 j0 sin c n  Dk
^



 Re f 0  j0 sin c0 f 0 0

34

where is the dispersion parameter of SS distributed

noises. It stands for noise power.

Y. Ling et al. / Signal Processing 111 (2015) 222229

Substituting (33) and (34), ReET 2 0 and ReET 3

0 into EReT 1 T 2 T 3 T 4 , we have
h


i
^
EReT 1 T 2 T 3 T 4   E 2s 20 Dk
D
35
Then rewriting (26) as
h
i
h
i
22
^ 1  D E Dk
^
E Dk
 D 1  2 2s 20

!
36

h
i



22
^
^
E Dk
D D0
 D 1  2 2s 20

when the step size satisfy 0 o o

37

=22 2s 20 .

Thus

4.2. Error analysis

To estimate the variance of the time delay estimation
^
Dk
and to evaluate the performance of the proposed
algorithm, the mean square error (k) is considered and
defined in
2
^
k ED  Dk

2

^
^ k 2DEDk
D2
ED

38

In Appendix A, we have
k 1 Ck B

39

where
42 2 2 42 4 4 4
4 s 0
2 s 0

40
41



2
20
q 2 2s 20  2 20 2s 20 2
3


1 EG
42

M2

n  M1

B
1C

45

Substituting (40) and (41) into (45), we get

 2 4 4 





2 2s 20  2 20 2s 20 2 2 =3 20 1 EG
2 =




42 = 2 2s 20  42 4 = 4 4s 40

Assuming 2s = c 1 and the signal power 2s 1, the

terms containing 2 in (46) could be neglected. Then (46) is
simplified to
2
^   3 EG
varD
2 2 2 20

47

^ is seriously
From (47), we could see that the varD
influenced by the dispersion parameter . However, for the
proposed correntropy based algorithm, if the kernel size
is chosen properly, the estimation accuracy could be
improved.
5. Simulation results
Suppose that the interesting signal s(k) is double sideband suppressed carrier (DSB-SC) signal. Its carrier frequency is 10 MHz and the sampling frequency is 60 MHz.
The actual delay D is set as 0.3 sample interval. Both w1(k)
and w2(k) are noises subjected to SS distribution with the
location parameter a 0. The accuracy of the delay estima^ is the delay estimation
tion (P) is defined in (48), where D
value and D is the true value.

1
0
^

D  D
A  100%
P @1 
48
D
The GSNR is defined in

22 4
q
4


^ k

varD
k-1

46

0 o o 4 = 2s 20 is the sufficient condition for all the

p i
A 0; 1= 2 to achieve convergence.

It is 0 o o 4 = 2s 20 .
^ is given by
The delay variance varD

!k

h
i
^
When 0 o1 22 = 2 2s 20 o1 and k-1, E Dk
-D.
h
i
^
It means that the E Dk
will converge to the actual delay

C 1

0 o o 4 = 2s 20 , 0 o o 2 4 = 2s 20 and a 4 = 2s 20 .

^
varD

After k iterations, we get

225


2


hDk
^ n

43

Supposing 0 oC o1 and taking the iteration of (k) for

k times, we have
1 C k
k C k 0 B
1C


2
1 C k
^
D B
C k D0
1C

44

Since 0oCo1, the step size should satisfy 0 o o

2 =22 2s 20 or 2 =22 2s 20 o o 2 =2 2s 20 , where


p i
A 0; 1= 2 . It means that 0 o o 2 4 = 2s 20 and
a 4 = 2s 20 . Then the new condition for the convergence
of the algorithm can be obtained by the intersection of

GSNR 10log10 2s = dB

49

where 2s is the signal variance and the is the dispersion

parameter of SS noise. All results in this paper are based
on 500 cycles of Monte-Carlo simulations.
Fig. 1 shows the accuracy comparison between algorithms MCCL marked with open circles and MMLETDE
marked with asterisks. For the narrowband signal s(k) in
Fig. 1(a) if the GSNR holds in the range of [10, 20] (dB),
both algorithms have similar performance. While if the
GSNR lies in [  10, 10] (dB), the MCCL is more accurate
than the MMLETDE. For the wideband signal s(k) in Fig. 1
(b), the MCCL performs much better than the MMLETDE
does. Overall, the MCCL has higher accuracy for wideband
signal or under low GSNR condition.
Fig. 2 shows the accuracy comparison between both
algorithms mentioned above when the parameter changes.
Under Gaussian noises (2) and part of the impulsive
noises (1.5oo2) conditions, both algorithms have similar
accuracy. However, under the condition of 1oo1.5, the
accuracy of the MCCL is greater than 90% while the accuracy
of the MMLETDE deteriorates significantly.

Y. Ling et al. / Signal Processing 111 (2015) 222229

100

100

90

90

80

80

70

70

Accuracy (%)

Accuracy (%)

226

60
50
40
30

60
50
40
30

20
10

MCCL
MMLETDE

20

MCCL
MMLETDE

10

0
-10

-5

10

15

0
0.5

20

GSNR(dB)

1.5

alpha
100

100

90

90

80

80

70

Accuracy (%)

Accuracy (%)

70
60
50
40

60
50
40
30

30

MCCL
MMLETDE

20
MCCL
MMLETDE

20

10

10

0
0.5

0
-10

-5

10

15

20

GSNR(dB)
Fig. 1. Delay estimation accuracy versus GSNR: (a) relative bandwidth of
s(k) is 0.1% and (b) relative bandwidth of s(k) is 5%.

We can see from Figs. 1 and 2, the MCCL has better

robustness to noises than the MMLETDE. The reason is that
the latter may be seriously affected by noises since it takes
the difference between real and estimated signals as the error
function directly. Thus the estimation results may deteriorate
rapidly with the decrease of the GSNR and value, since the
outliers in the difference will be more significant. Instead of
the difference taken by the MMLETDE, the MCCL utilizes the
instantaneous correntropy as the error function. The correntropy is positive and bounded. According to the properties of
the correntropy [16],
"
0 oec k V yk;

M2

n  M1

#
0
hDk
^ nxk n

1
r p
2

50

p
ec(k) reaches its maximum value 1= 2 if and only if
0
M2
yk n  M1 hDk
nxk n. It means that correntropy
^
could diminish the effect of outliers. So under low GSNR or
low values, the MCCL has better performance.
For the convergence analysis for both algorithms, the
MMLETDE is just suitable for a narrowband condition [14],
while the MCCL works well under both narrowband and

1.5

alpha
Fig. 2. Accuracy of the delay estimation versus : (a) relative bandwidth
of s(k) is 0.1% and (b) relative bandwidth of s(k) is 5%.

wideband conditions. So the MCCL has better adaptation

for the signal's relative bandwidth.
Fig. 3 shows the accuracy comparison between the
MMLETDE and the MCCL algorithms for different modulated signals. Generally, the MCCL has better performance
than the MMLETDE under the same conditions.
We see from Fig. 3 both algorithms get better time
delay estimation results for the DSB-SC signal than for
other signals. This is mainly caused by the characteristics
of different type of the modulated signals. As we know
that the amplitude of the DSB-SC includes directly the
time delay information. It is quite easy for both algorithms
to estimate the time delay by comparing the change of the
amplitude of the signals. However, other modulated signals, such as FM and QPSK, do not have such characteristics. The time delay information needs to be obtained
from the change of the phase or the frequency, causing the
decrease of estimation accuracy.
We also see from Fig. 3 that the performance of the
proposed algorithm is much better than that of its counterpart. The reason can be explained as follows. Considering
that only the fractional time delay is taken into account
in this paper, for the frequency modulation (FM) or phase

Y. Ling et al. / Signal Processing 111 (2015) 222229

100

227

100

90

90

80

80

Accuracy (%)

Accuracy (%)

70
60
50

MCCL FM
MMLETDE FM
MCCL QPSK
MMLETDE QPSK
MCCL BPSK
MMLETDE BPSK
MCCL DSB-SC
MMLETDE DSB-SC

40
30
20
10
0
-10

-5

10

15

70
60
50

N=1
N=2
N=3
N=4

40
30
20
-10

20

-5

10

15

20

Fig. 5. Accuracy versus filter order.

Fig. 3. Accuracy versus modulation.

The weighted input data expands as the order of filter

increases as well. We hope that the more data are used,
the more accurate the estimation will be. However, the



^
input data far from real x k  Dk
can only introduce

100
90
80
70

Accuracy (%)

GSNR (dB)

GSNR (dB)

extra error instead of accuracy, leading to a deteriorative

result. So the order of the Lagrange FDF should be set to 1.

60
50

6. Conclusion

40
30
20
10
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

kernel size
Fig. 4. Accuracy versus kernel size.

modulation (PM) signals, the amplitude changes caused by

the time delay are less significant than those caused by the
noise. Since the MMLETDE is to obtain the time delay
estimation through investigating the variations in the signals'
amplitudes, for FM or PM signals, the inapparent changes in
the amplitudes may result in a significant error in the
fractional time delay estimation. By employing the correntropy in the cost function, the proposed MCCL algorithm can
effectively eliminate the effects of outliers. As a result, the
MCCL can achieve better fractional time delay estimation for
different modulated signals than MMLETDE does.
Fig. 4 illuminates the accuracy when the kernel size varies
in the range of A[0.01,1.96], where GSNR10 dB and 1.5
are set. Accuracy holds above 90% when A[0.2, 1.2] and it
deteriorates significantly when A[0.1, 0.2][ [1.2, 1.9]. It is
because that a small leads to a meaningless estimation for
the time delay and a large results in a biased estimation
[16]. Obviously, we must choose carefully.
Fig. 5 shows the accuracy comparison when GSNR and
filter order N changes. The first-order Lagrange FDF uses



^
weighted x(k) and x(k  1) to estimate x k  Dk
, and
the second-order one uses x(k 1), x(k) and x(k  1).

In this paper, the MCCL algorithm is proposed which

applies maximum correntropy criterion and the Lagrange FDF
for the fractional time delay estimation. Simulation results
show that the MCCL has better robustness to noises and
better signal adaptability. Since the filter order that the MCCL
needs is low, the calculation complexity is low accordingly.
In conclusion, the MCCL has better performance over the
MMLETDE.

Acknowledgments
This work is partly supported by National Natural Science
Foundation of China (61172108, 61139001, and 81241059) and
the Science and Technology Support Program (2012BAJ18B06)
Appendix A
Taking the square and expectation on both sides of (16),
then using (19) we have
h 2
i
h 2 i 4 h
i h
i
2
^ k 1 E D
^ k  E Dk
^
E D
E ec k ReT 1 T 2 T 3 T 4
2
i
4
42 h
E ec k Re2 T 1 T 2 T 3 T 4
4

A:1
h
i

2
Since ReT 12 Re TT n T 2 , where T T1 T2 T3
T4, we get

i
h 2
i
h 2 i 42 h
i
22 4 h

^ k 1 E D
^ k 
^
E D
E Dk
EReT  4 E Re TT n T 2
2

p i
where A 0; 1= 2 .

A:2

228

Y. Ling et al. / Signal Processing 111 (2015) 222229

2
where G M
n

Referring to (33), we have

h
i h
i
h
i
^
^
^
E Dk
 D
E Dk
EReT   2s 20 E Dk

h 2 i
h
i
^ k DE Dk
^
2 2 E D
s



E T 4 T n4 2 20 2

h

i
in the third term of
Then evaluating Re E TT n T 2
(A.2)
 

 

Re E TT n Re E T 1 T 2 T 3 T 4 T 1 T 2 T 3 T 4 n


Re ET 1 T n1 T 2 T n2 T 3 T n3 T 4 T n4


2Re ET 1 T n2 T 1 T n3 T 1 T n4 T 2 T n3 T 2 T n4 T 3 T n4
A:4
h
i
h
i
Re E T 2 Re ET 1 T 2 T 3 T 4 2
h
i
Re ET 21 T 22 T 23 T 24
2ReET 1 T 2 T 1 T 3 T 1 T 4 T 2 T 3 T 2 T 4 T 3 T 4 
n

A:5

Obviously, ET 1 T 2 , ET 1 T 2 , ET 1 T 3 , ET 1 T 3 , ET 1 T 4 ,
ET 1 T n4 , ET 2 T 3 , ET 2 T n3 , ET 2 T 4 , ET 2 T n4 , ET 3 T 4 , ET 3 T n4 ,
ET 22 , ET 23  are all equal to zero, for the signals and the
noises are uncorrelated.
The other terms are evaluated one by one as follows:
2
2 3



 M2


^
^
ET 1 T n1  E4 sk  D  sk  Dk
n 5
gn  Dksk


n  M1


2 
^


E  2s j0 1  ej0 Dk  D 

A:6

(A.6) is simplified to

h


i
^
^
ET 1 T n1  E 4s 20 2 sin 2 0 Dk
 D 4 sin 2 0 Dk
 D=2

h
^
E 4s 40 Dk
 D2 

.




20 1 EG
3
2

A:11
A:12

Therefore, (A.1) can be simplified as

!
h 2
i
h 2 i
2
^ k 1  4 2 2
^ k 1 E D
E D
2 s 0

42 2 2 h ^ i 22 4  4 4
DE Dk 4 2 s 0 k q
2 s 0

A:13

where




q 2 2s 20  4n 20 2s 20 2 2 =3 20 1 EG.
Then, we get
h 2
i
h
i
^ k 1 2DE Dk
^ 1 D2
k 1 E D
!
42
42 4
22 4
k 1  2 2s 20 4 4s 40 4 q A:14

Defining
C 1

42 2 2 42 4 4 4
4 s 0
2 s 0

A:15

and
22 4
q
4

A:16

Then
k 1 Ck B

A:17

A:7

Similarly,
2

M2

n  M1

!2 3
^
gn  Dksk  n 5



2 
^
E 2s j0 1  ej0 Dk  D
h
^
E 4s 40 Dk
D2 

A:8

Then ET 2 T n2  is evaluated

2
2 3




2  M2
 


^
^
ET 2 T n2  E4 w2 k  w1 k  Dk
 n 5
  gn  Dksk

n  M 1




2 
^


j0 k  Dk
^
^
E  w2 k  w1 k  Dk
j0 Ak  Dke



2 
^


2 2s 20 E  jej0 k  Dk 
2 2s 20

A:9
n

ET 24 

Referring to [14], ET 3 T 3 , ET 4 T 4  and

ated one by one as follows:
"
!
#

2
M2


2 2

ET 3 T n3  E 1 hDk
n


^
s 0

are evalu-

n  M1

2s 20 1 EG

ET 24  2 2 20

2


A:3


^
ET 1 2  E4 sk D  sk Dk




n
^
 M 1 hDk

A:10

References
[1] X. Zhang, Y. Bai, X. Chen, An improved cross-correlation method
based on fractional delay estimation for velocity measurement of
high speed targets, Proceedings of the World Congress on Engineering and Computer Science (WCECS) (2013).
[2] B. Feng, T. Wang, C. Liu, C. Chen, W. Chen, An effective CLEAN
algorithm for interference cancellation and weak target detection in
passive radar, 2013 Asia-Pacific Conference on Synthetic Aperture
Radar (APSAR) (2013) 160163.
[3] C.C. Took, S. Sanei, S. Rickard, J. Chambers, S. Dunne, Fractional delay
estimation for blind source separation and localization of temporomandibular joint sounds, IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 55 (March 3)
(2008) 949956.
[4] M. Sirbu, E. Delfino, V. Koivunen, A novel method for time delay
acquisition in satellite navigation systems, in: Proceedings of the
2004 IEEE Eighth International Symposium on Spread Spectrum
Techniques and Applications (2004) 726730.
[5] P. Liao, M. Cai, Y. Shi, Z. Fan, Compressed air leak detection based on
time delay estimation using a portable multi-sensor ultrasonic
detector, Meas. Sci. Technol. 24 (March 3) (2013).
[6] Y. Ma, Y. Akaiwa, Y. Yamao, S. He, Test bed for characterization and
predistortion of power amplifiers, Int. J. RF Microw. Comput.Aided
Eng. 23 (2013) 7482. (May (5).
[7] H. Qian, H. Huang, S. Yao, A general adaptive digital predistortion
architecture for stand-alone RF power amplifiers, IEEE Trans. Broadcast. 59 (March 3) (2013) 528538.
[8] I. Bucher, O. Halevi, Optimal phase calibration of nonlinear, delayed
sensors, Mech. Syst. Signal Process. 45 (January 1) (2014) 424432.
[9] S.A. Fares, T.A. Denidni, S. Affes, C. Despins, Fractional-delay sequential blind beamforming for wireless multipath communications in
confined areas, IEEE Trans. Wirel. Commun. 7 (February 2) (2008)
629638.

Y. Ling et al. / Signal Processing 111 (2015) 222229

[10] F. Viola, W.F. Walker, A spline-based algorithm for continuous timedelay estimation using sampled data, IEEE Trans. Ultrason. Ferroelectr. Freq. Control 52 (January 1) (2005) 8093.
[11] A. Grennberg, M. Sandell, Estimation of subsample time delay
differences in narrowband ultrasonic echoes using the Hilbert
transform correlation, IEEE Trans. Ultrason. Ferroelectr. Freq. Control
41 (May 5) (1994) 588595.
[12] H.C. So, P.C. Ching, Y.T. Chan, A new algorithm for explicit adaptation
of time delay, IEEE Trans. Signal Process. 42 (July 7) (1994)
18161820.
[13] T.L. Laakso, V. Valimaki, M. Karjalainern, U.K. Laine, Splitting the unit
delay [FIR/all pass filters design], IEEE Signal Process. Mag. 13
(January 1) (1996) 3060.

229

[14] Z. Cheng, T.T. Tjhung, A new time delay estimator based on ETDE,
IEEE Trans. Signal Process. 51 (July 7) (2003) 18591869.
[15] E. Hermanowicz, Explicity formulas for weighting coefficients of
maximally flat tunable FIR delays, Electron. Lett. 28 (September 20)
(1992) 19361937.
[16] W. Liu, P.P. Pokharel, J.C. Prncipe, Correntropy: properties and
applications in non-Gaussian signal processing, IEEE Trans. Signal
Process. 55 (November 11) (2007) 52865298.