RESEARCH ARTICLE

Enhanced DWT-OFDM communication

system using wavelet domain equalizer with
Co-CFO
Khaled Ramadan1,2, Emad S. Hassan 3
*

1 Department of Telecommunication Engineering, Collage of Engineering at Ahlia University, Manama,

Bahrain, 2 Department of Communications and Computer Engineering, The Higher Institute of Engineering
at Al-Shorouk City, Cairo, Egypt, 3 Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, College of
Engineering and Computer Science, Jazan University, Jizan, Saudi Arabia

* eshassan@[Link]

Abstract
For the design of Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiplexing (OFDM), the Discrete Wave-
let Transform (DWT) offers significant benefits over the classic Discrete Fourier Transform
(DFT). This article proposes a Joint Low Complexity Regularized Zero Forcing-Wavelet
Domain Equalizer (JLCRLZF-WDE) as substitute to a Frequency Domain Equalizer (FDE)
for improving the Multiple-Input-Multiple-Output (MIMO) DWT-OFDM. The results have
OPEN ACCESS
been assessed using the Co-Carrier Frequency Offset (Co-CFO) Rayleigh fading channel.
Citation: Ramadan K, Hassan ES (2025) The proposed scheme’s relevance is demonstrated by a comparison of its Bit-Error-Rate
Enhanced DWT-OFDM communication system
using wavelet domain equalizer with Co-CFO.
(BER) and simulated time with those of conventional schemes. The obtained results
PLoS ONE 20(4): e0317097. [Link] showed that the proposed JLCRLZF-WDE outperforms conventional equalizers, requiring
org/10.1371/[Link].0317097 only 0.82 dB additional SNR to match the BER performance of Linear Minimum Mean
Editor: Mohammad Reza Ghavidel Aghdam, Square Error (LMMSE)-WDE at BER = 10-3, and 0.27 dB at BER = 10-4. In comparison,
Ozyegin University: Ozyegin Universitesi, other equalizers, such as Linear Zero Forcing (LZF)-FDE and LMMSE-FDE based on
TÜRKIYE
DWT and DFT, require significantly higher SNR values to reach the same performance
Received: October 17, 2024 benchmarks, with differences ranging from 0.31 dB to over 15.35 dB. Additionally, the
Accepted: December 11, 2024 proposed scheme achieves a simulated time reduction of 3.17% and 12.4% compared to
Published: April 17, 2025
LMMSE-WDE based on DWT and DFT, respectively.

Copyright: © 2025 Ramadan, Hassan. This is

an open access article distributed under the
terms of the Creative Commons Attribution I. Introduction
License, which permits unrestricted use,
distribution, and reproduction in any medium, Because of its effective use of spectrum and resilience to multipath interference, orthogonal
provided the original author and source are frequency division multiplexing, or OFDM, is a crucial technology found in many contem-
credited. porary wireless communication networks, including Wi-Fi, 4G, and 5G. By partitioning
Data availability statement: The data is the whole bandwidth into many orthogonal subcarriers, each one is assigned to transmit a
available in a Figshare repository at the segment of the data, OFDM considerably lowers Inter-Symbol Interference (ISI) in wireless
following link: ([Link] situations that is brought on by signal reflections. In contrast to conventional Frequency
[Link].28288001.v1). Division Multiplexing (FDM), OFDM guarantees interference-free frequency overlap between
Funding: The authors gratefully acknowledge subcarriers, enhancing spectral efficiency [1]. The primary advantage of OFDM is its ability
the funding of the Deanship of Graduate to effectively handle frequency-selective fading, which makes it perfect for wireless broad-
Studies and Scientific Research, Jazan band applications. Since each OFDM subcarrier is modulated individually, the system is more

PLOS ONE | [Link] April 17, 2025 1 / 32

PLOS ONE Enhanced DWT-OFDM communication system using wavelet domain equalizer with Co-CFO

University, Saudi Arabia, through Project robust to channel impairments when the data is distributed over a large number of subcarri-
Number: GSSRD-24. ers. Moreover, OFDM employs a Cyclic Prefix (CP), a duplicate of the signal’s last segment to
Competing interests: The authors have lessen the impact of multipath delay spread and provide resilience against ISI [1]. OFDM is
declared that no competing interests exist. very helpful in the context of 4G and 5G networks as it allows for huge interconnection and
high data rates [2]. Additionally, its ability to handle multipath fading and provide efficient
spectrum utilization makes OFDM an ideal candidate for enhancing the performance of
Wireless Sensor Networks (WSNs), particularly in scenarios requiring reliable and scalable
communication [3]. Moreover, OFDM performs much better when combined with MIMO
technology, which multiplexes data spatially. Another advantage is that, in comparison to
time-domain equalization techniques, it has a very straightforward equalization procedure in
the FD, greatly reducing receiver complexity.
Nevertheless, there are several drawbacks to OFDM, such as a large Peak-to-Average
Power Ratio (PAPR) that may result in power amplifier performance that is not very efficient.
Many methods are employed to lower PAPR, including filtering and clipping, although these
can cause signal distortion. Despite these difficulties, OFDM is a popular technique in wireless
networks because its benefits in multipath situations exceed its disadvantages [2]. To further
highlight OFDM’s adaptability, it is the foundation for several contemporary broadcasting
technologies, such as Digital Audio Broadcasting (DAB) and Digital Video Broadcasting
(DVB). The fact that OFDM can handle reflections and signal interference to ensure depend-
able data transmission is one of the reasons it works so well in crowded, metropolitan settings.
Furthermore, OFDM can optimize throughput by adjusting data rates in response to channel
circumstances thanks to its adaptive modulation and coding techniques.
Applications for 5G and other wireless communication technologies can also make
advantage of this technology. Additionally, the Inverse Discrete Fourier Transform (IDFT)
and DFT can used to build a standard OFDM system [1]. The OFDM system may be built
utilizing an orthogonal transform such as Inverse DWT (IDWT) at the transmitter and
DWT at the receiver [4]. Wavelet-based MIMO-OFDM is increasingly recognized for its
potential in wireless communication due to its ability to provide high spectral efficiency,
cost-effectiveness, and reduced phase noise [5]. Studies highlight that the DWT enhances
system performance compared to the DFT by reducing PAPR, improving non-linearity [6],
and overcoming limitations of traditional Multi-Carrier Modulation (MCM) systems [7].
Research demonstrates the effectiveness of DWT in applications such as MIMO-OFDM for
wireless communication [8], improving system performance [9], millimeter-wave systems
[10], and image transmission over correlated channels [9], with benefits including extended
battery life [11], enhanced performance, and robust diversity techniques for future networks
[10]. The capacity to extract both local spectral and temporal information is the fundamental
benefit of the Wavelet Transform over the Fourier Transform in OFDM based on the DWT
[12]. Wavelet transform is benefit for identifying signals, de-noising, and compression due to
its superior energy compaction capabilities. Scaling and translation of a short wave are used to
represent a signal. This wave is sometimes referred to as a wavelet. The wavelets’ average value
is consistently zero, and the interval is always bounded [13]. Wavelet families include Haar
Wavelet [14], Daubechies Wavelekt (DW) [15], Symlets Wavelet (SW) [16], Coiflet Wavelet
(CW) [17], Biorthogonal Wavelet (BW) [18], Reverse Biorthogonal Wavelet (RBW) [19],
Discrete Meyer (DM) [20], Embedded Zerotree Wavelet (EZW) [21], Spatial Orientation Tree
Wavelet (SOTW) [22], Wavelet Difference Reduction (WDR) [23]. We are interested in the
Haar wavelet type [14] in this study since it is one of the most prominent in mathematics and
engineering due to its simplicity and compact support. The Haar Wavelet divides a discrete
signal into two equal-sized components. The first section is called the trending section, while
the second section is known as the fluctuation section. In this paper, we focus on the Haar

PLOS ONE | [Link] April 17, 2025 2 / 32

PLOS ONE Enhanced DWT-OFDM communication system using wavelet domain equalizer with Co-CFO

wavelet type. The authors of [3] present many ways for quickly implementing various types
of wavelet transformations. Because of its strong performance in high-noise and multi-path
situations, the DWT is being used more and more in wireless communication systems [24]. By
improving spectrum efficiency and lowering BER, DWT-based systems can perform better in
5G than conventional DFT-based techniques, particularly in Non-Orthogonal Multiple Access
(NOMA) systems [24]. In MIMO-OFDM systems, DWT is also utilized to maintain high data
rates while lowering power consumption and computational complexity [24]. Furthermore,
modulation and coding performance in contemporary communication channels are improved
by DWT’s capacity to manage multi-resolution signal analysis [24].

II. Related work

Recent advancements in OFDM systems have seen significant use of FDE to counteract
the impacts of multipath fading. In DFT-OFDM systems, one of the key advantages is the
straightforward implementation of FDE, which enhances system performance by simplify-
ing the process of handling channel distortions. Several studies have focused on improving
the efficiency of FDE-based OFDM systems. In [25] FDE-based OFDM systems with index
modulation (OFDM-IM) have been explored for their ability to enhance spectral efficiency
by employing subcarrier activation patterns and reducing the active subcarrier count. These
innovations aim to maximize data throughput while maintaining the reliability of communi-
cation channels, making them suitable for 5G and beyond.
A recent study in [26] proposes an iterative decision feedback channel estimation (IDFCE)
method for DFT-Spread OFDM (DFT-S-OFDM) systems, aimed at improving channel esti-
mation and error correction. The method integrates a time-division multiplexing reference
signal into a turbo FDE. In this approach, channel responses, which are used in both feedfor-
ward and decision-feedback equalizers, are iteratively updated during each iteration of the
turbo FDE, enhancing the accuracy of the estimation process. A novel FDE scheme designed
for one-bit uplink multi-user massive MIMO systems is presented in [27]. This scheme
employs a pseudo-random quantization (PRQ) method with non-zero threshold quantization
to mitigate the effects of quantization distortion, which typically limits the system’s ability to
handle high-order modulation. The proposed equalizer, based on Newton’s method (NM),
is specifically tailored for OFDM transmissions under frequency-selective fading conditions
by leveraging the inherent benefits of massive MIMO. To reduce computational complexity,
a low-complexity FDE algorithm is developed using a quasi-Newton approach. However,
despite its effectiveness, FDE in DFT-OFDM introduces additional computational complexity
due to the requirement for extra DFT and IDFT operations during the equalization process.
This extra step not only increases processing time but also limits the system’s efficiency, par-
ticularly in high-speed communication scenarios where real-time performance is crucial.
The study presented in [28] focused on the multilevel redundant DWT-OFDM
(ML-RDWT-­OFDM) system. This system incorporates Low-Density Parity-Check (LDPC)
coding and Soft Decision (SD) decoding based on the belief propagation algorithm to enhance
the overall system performance. Simulation results demonstrated that incorporating LDPC
coding significantly improves the performance of ML-RDWT-OFDM systems.
A comparative study analyzed the BER performance of signals transmitted using DWT
and DFT in various channel environments was presented in [29]. It was observed that DWT-
OFDM and DFT-OFDM perform similarly in AWGN channels, but DFT-OFDM exhibits
better performance in Rayleigh channels. A recent study in [30] proposed an adaptive decision
feedback equalizer with interference reconstruction and cancellation for OFDM systems. This
method minimizes the symbol error rate (MSER) by performing adaptive filtering in the delay

PLOS ONE | [Link] April 17, 2025 3 / 32

PLOS ONE Enhanced DWT-OFDM communication system using wavelet domain equalizer with Co-CFO

dimension, mitigating inter-symbol interference (ISI), and compensating for cyclic convolu-
tion and phase flipping.
The limitations of traditional FDE implementations have sparked interest in exploring
alternative approaches, such as the use of wavelet-based OFDM systems. DWT-OFDM, for
instance, offers improved spectral efficiency and better time-frequency localization com-
pared to DFT-OFDM. However, conventional FDE implementations in DWT-OFDM still
suffer from the same computational drawbacks due to the additional DFT/IDFT operations
required for equalization. This has highlighted the need for more advanced equalization
techniques. The proposed JLCRLZF-WDE addresses these challenges by eliminating the
need for the extra DFT/IDFT steps, reducing computational complexity, and improving
BER performance, making it a more efficient solution for modern wireless communication
systems. The proposed equalizer can execute both equalization and co-CFO compensation
operations at the same time without requiring extra blocks of DFT/IDFT. Moreover, research
on DWT-OFDM is still in its early stages, and there is a lot of scope for additional perfor-
mance enhancement. For the MIMO-OFDM system, this paper’s contributions are summa-
rized below:
1. The JLCRLZF-WDE is offered as an appropriate term for a tool that performs the equaliza-
tion and co-CFO compensation operations combined in the WD rather than the FD, which
requires additional IDFT/DFT blocks [31].
2. The proposed JLCRLZF-WDE equalizer employs a constant value to decrease the time
delay necessary for SNR estimation, as in the LMMSE equalizer. This value is known as the
Regularization parameter, and it is responsible for noise amplification mitigation in the
LZF equalizer.
3. The proposed JLCRLZF-WDE can conduct its process appropriately for varied values of
the normalized CFO, as well as in the situation of Co-CFO.
4. The performance of the proposed JLCRLZF-WDE is determined in terms of BER and sim-
ulated time, using the LMMSE-WDE as a benchmark for comparison.
5. The obtained results indicate that the proposed JLCRLZF-WDE is resistant to estimation
errors as well as different values of the normalized co-CFO.

III. Proposed DWT-OFDM system model

Fig 1 depicts the main transceiver topology of an i × j MIMO-DWT-OFDM system
employing WDE over a Rayleigh fading channel. The proposed JLCRLZF-WDE is used to
accomplish the equalization and co-CFO compensation operations in the WD.
Firstly, a polar NRZ is generated via a random that de-multiplexed via each stream
in accordance to antennas number at the transmitter side. A Serial-to-Parallel (S/P)
converter is used to route each group of length N . IDWT comes after that. As a result,
the transmitted data vector before the IDWT block associated with the ith vector may be
written as:

T
X i =  X0i X1i ….. X Ni −2 X Ni −1  � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � (1)

T
where (.) is the matrix transpose, N is the sub-carrier number, and X i ∈ R N×1 . Currently,
each N vector has the IDWT block applied to it. The IDWT block is now applied to each of
the N vectors. As a consequence, the ith vector’s IDWT output may be stated as follows:

PLOS ONE | [Link] April 17, 2025 4 / 32

PLOS ONE Enhanced DWT-OFDM communication system using wavelet domain equalizer with Co-CFO

Fig 1. The i × j MIMO-OFDM structure based on DWT utilizing WDE.

[Link]

(2)

where x i ∈ R N×1 , u ∈ R 2 N×N represents the up-sampling matrix, which is defined as follows:

PLOS ONE | [Link] April 17, 2025 5 / 32

PLOS ONE Enhanced DWT-OFDM communication system using wavelet domain equalizer with Co-CFO

(3)

ht ∈ R N×2 N represents the filter Impulse Response Matrix (IRM) of the IDWT at the trans-
mitter side, which consists of the Low Pass Filter (LPF) and the High Pass Filter (HPF). It is a
composite of two filters as: ht = h0 ; h1  , h0 , h1 ∈ R N×N , which is defined as:

(4)

and

(5)

In fact, the term ht u matrix refers to the IDWT matrix. ho is the IRM of LPF at the
transmitter and receiver sides and h1 is the RM of the HPF at the transmitter side. The CP is
now appended to the beginning of each vector. As a result, the ith modulated vector with CP is
written as follows:

T
i
x CP = PCP+ x i =  x0i ,CP x1i ,CP ….. x Ni −2, CP x Ni −1,CP  (6)
 

with

T
 T 
PCP+ =  0NCP ×(N −NCP ) ; I NCP ×NCP  , I N×N  (7)
   

where PCP+ ∈ R( CP ) is the matrix related to CP insertion, x iCP ∈ R( CP ) , N CP

N +N ×N N +N ×1

represents the CP length, I a×b denotes an a ×b diagonal unity matrix, and 0a×b is an a ×b
matrix of all zero elements. The data is then sent via the Rayleigh fading channel once each
stream’s Parallel-to-Serial (P/S) stage has been employed. The Rayleigh fading channel and

PLOS ONE | [Link] April 17, 2025 6 / 32

PLOS ONE Enhanced DWT-OFDM communication system using wavelet domain equalizer with Co-CFO

co-CFO are included in the received data vector at the jth antenna, and noise after the Serial-­
to-Parallel (S/P) stage, is represented as follows:

y j = ψ j ,i H j ,i PCP+ x i + z j (8)

where y j ∈ C( CP ) indicates the jth vector before the ignoration of the CP vector,
N +N ×1

z j ∈ C( CP ) is the complex AWGN vector with zero mean. The co-CFO can be expressed
N + N ×1

as a diagonal matrix as ψ j ,i ∈ C( CP ) ( CP ) that given by:

N +N × N +N

 j 2 πε j ,i j 4 πε j ,i 2 πε j ,i (N + N CP −2) 2 πε j ,i (N + N CP −1) 

 j j
ψ j ,i =Diag 1, e N , e N ,…, e N
,e N
 (9)
 
 
The co-CFO among the transmitting antenna number i and receiving antenna number j is ε j ,i
that expressed as:

f
ε j ,i = (10)
∆f

where the sub-carrier spacing is represented by ∆f and the frequency shift by f. Additionally,
the size of transform, carrier frequency, oscillator misalignment, all have an effect on the nor-
malized co-CFO value. The channel IRM among the jth receiving antenna and the ith sending
antenna is denoted by H j ,i ∈ C( CP ) ( CP ) , which is defined as:
N +N × N +N

 h(0)
 0 0 0 … 0 0 0 0 

 h(1) h(0) 0 0 … 0 0 0 0 
 
  h(1) h(0) 0 … 0 0 0 0 
 
h(L −1)  h(1) h(0) … 0 0 0 0 
 
 0 h( L − 1)  h(1) … 0 0 0 0 
H j ,i =   (11)
 0 0 h(L −1)  … 0 0 0 0 
 
 0 0 0 h(L −1) … h(0) 0 0 0 
 0 
 0 0 0  h(1) h(0) 0 0 
 0 
 0 0 0 … h(2) h(1) h(0) 0 

 0 0 0 0 … h(3) h(2) h(1) h(0)

The channel impulse response coefficient is represented by h(w ) , while the number of
Rayleigh fading channel taps is indicated by w ∈ {1, 2,…, L −1} . Such ignores the head of each
data vector that represents the CP. Additionally, the output of jth vector’s CP removal stage is
written as:

y j = PCP− y j = PCP− Λ j ,i PCP+ x i + PCP− z j (12)

where Λj ,i = ψ j ,i H j ,i denotes a composite of both the co-CFO and Rayleigh fading channel.
Meanwhile, PCP− ∈ R ( CP ) denotes the CP removal matrix. The above equation can be
N× N + N

expressed using Eq. (2) as follows:

(13)

PLOS ONE | [Link] April 17, 2025 7 / 32

PLOS ONE Enhanced DWT-OFDM communication system using wavelet domain equalizer with Co-CFO

Then, an N-point DWT is applied, comprising two key operations: combination of LPF and
HPF hr and the down-conversion matrix d. Hence, hr ∈ R 2 N×N , hr = [h0 ; h2 ], h0 , h2 ∈ R N×N ,
where

(14)

where h2 is the RM of the HPF at the receiver side. Now, the down-sampling matrix
d ∈ R N×2 N is applied, which is defined as follows:

(15)

Now, Eq. (13) will be modified to include DWT as follows:

(16)

IV. Proposed JLCRLZF-WDE

This part discuss the mathematical representation of the proposed JLCRLZF-WDE. In the
case of 2 × 2 MIMO-DWT-OFDM system, Eq. (16) will be re-written as:

(17)

Let’s define , j, i = {1, 2} . In general, Π j ,i is a composite

transmission matrix, representing the signal transformation up to the point of equalization
and excluding the equalization process between the ith transmitting antennas, and jth receiving
antenna. Now, Eq. (17) will be re-written as:

(18)

PLOS ONE | [Link] April 17, 2025 8 / 32

PLOS ONE Enhanced DWT-OFDM communication system using wavelet domain equalizer with Co-CFO

where φ j = d hr PCP− z j , j = {1, 2} . φ j is the processed noise vector, which corresponds to

the noise vector after applying processing steps like CP removal, down-sampling, and filtering
(e.g., LPF and HPF). 2a illustrates the magnitude of the Interference Matrix (IM) in the case of
DWT, providing insight into the distribution of interference among subcarriers. In contrast,
2b depicts the corresponding phase angles of each element in 2a, offering a comprehensive
view of the IM’s complex structure. The diagonal elements in 2a represent the desired subcar-
riers, which are free of interference, while the off-diagonal elements correspond to interfer-
ence contributions from other subcarriers. To further clarify, 3a focuses on a specific instance
by presenting the magnitude of the IM for row 20, enabling a more detailed examination of
the interference pattern. Additionally, 3b complements this by illustrating the corresponding
phase angles for the same row, as shown in 3a, thereby highlighting the interplay between
magnitude and phase in the IM structure. This detailed visualization underscores the char-
acteristics of interference in the system and aids in understanding its impact on the overall
performance.
Similarly, Fig 4a illustrates the magnitude of the IM for the case of DFT, providing a
detailed representation of interference across subcarriers. Correspondingly, Fig 4b shows
the phase angles for each element in Fig 4a, offering a comprehensive understanding of both
magnitude and phase in the DFT-based IM. For a more focused analysis, Fig 5a presents the
magnitude of the DFT IM for row 20, isolating the interference pattern for this specific sub-
carrier. In parallel, Fig 5b displays the corresponding phase angles for the same row, as shown
in Fig 5a, enabling a deeper examination of the IM’s characteristics. When compared to the
results shown in Fig 2, and Fig 3, it is evident that the DWT approach exhibits significantly
lower interference from neighboring subcarriers to the desired subcarriers, as reflected in the
diagonal elements of the IM. This demonstrates the superior ability of the DWT to mitigate
interference when contrasted with the DFT, especially in systems experiencing co-CFO effects.
The IM for the case of DFT under co-CFO conditions can be mathematically expressed as [32]

A B

Fig 2. a: The IM magnitude vs the sub-carrier indices in the case of DWT. b: The IM angle vs the sub-carrier indices in the case of DWT.

[Link]

PLOS ONE | [Link] April 17, 2025 9 / 32

PLOS ONE Enhanced DWT-OFDM communication system using wavelet domain equalizer with Co-CFO

Fig 3. a: The IM magnitude vs the sub-carrier indices using DWT for row number 20 of Fig. 2a. b: The IM angle vs the sub-carrier indices using DWT for row
number 20 of Fig 2b.

[Link]

π (m− p)+ ε (N −1)

j  (
sin π (m − p) + ε j ,i  )
(η )
m , p DFT =e N
.
 π (m − p) + ε  
(19)
  j , i  
N . sin  
 N 
 
The IM in the case of DWT with co-CFO is written as:

(η )
m , p DWT = d hr ψ j ,i ht u (20)

So, we can takthe number of sub-carriers into consideration and ignore the remaining as:

(Π ) j ,i
m− p ≤ τ
(µ )j ,i
= {
m, p
(21)
m, p
0 m− p > τ

where m − p is the relative sub-carrier distance, and µ j ,i is the BMA of the Π j ,i matrix.
The proposed JLCRLZF-WDE general matrix solution is:

−1
Υ JLCRLZF−WDE = (µ H µ + αI jN× jN ) µH (22)

In Eq. (22), α represents the regularization parameter, which is a constant value used to mit-
igate noise amplification, and µ ∈ CiN× jN is the BMA. In the case of 2×2 MIMO configura-
tion, we have:
 µ1,1 µ1,2 
µ =  2,1 (23)
 µ µ2,2 
Using the JCLRLZF-WDE matrix solution stated in Eq. (19) and the BMA defined in Eq. (20).
The optimal value of α, which correlates to the inverse value of the SNR, is required for the

PLOS ONE | [Link] April 17, 2025 10 / 32

PLOS ONE Enhanced DWT-OFDM communication system using wavelet domain equalizer with Co-CFO

Fig 4. a: The IM magnitude vs the sub-carrier indices using DFT. b: The IM angle vs the sub-carrier indices using DFT.

[Link]

Fig 5. a: The IM magnitude vs the sub-carrier indices using DFT for row number 20 of Fig 4a. b: The IM angle vs the sub-carrier indices using DFT for row num-
ber 20 of Fig 4b.

[Link]

proposed equalizer. The BMA bandwidth (τ) must be accurately provided in order to satisfy
reduced complexity implementation.

V. Simulation results and analysis

The simulation results for the proposed JLCRLZF-WDE based on DWT-OFDM systems will
be analyzed. The analysis will utilized a 6-tap Rayleigh fading with carrier frequency 2 GHz,

PLOS ONE | [Link] April 17, 2025 11 / 32

PLOS ONE Enhanced DWT-OFDM communication system using wavelet domain equalizer with Co-CFO

Table 1. List of used parameters.

Parameter Value Parameter Value
IDWT/DWT size 64 SNR range 0:5:30
IDFT/DFT size 64 Number of Tx. antennas 2
CP length 16 Number of Rx. antennas 2
Channel type Rayleigh Simulation model Monte Carlo
εmax 0.1 Number of iterations 103
Channel estimation type Perfect
[Link]

modeled according to the Jakes model [33,34] and vehicle A model [35] using the simulation
parameters indicated in Table 1. According to the preceding section’s analysis, the value of
α should be specified with minimal BER performance and τ should be as small as feasible to
reduce computational complexity.
Fig 6a shows the normalized magnitude plotted against the indices for the Π1,1 matrix in
the case of DWT, providing a clear visualization of how the interference distribution varies
across subcarriers. Fig 6b complements this by presenting the corresponding phase angles for
each element in Fig 6a, offering a comprehensive representation of both magnitude and phase
characteristics. In this scenario, each normalized co-CFO is treated as a random variable
with a uniform distribution in the range [−εmax , + εmax ] , where εmax denotes the maximum
normalized co-CFO. This assumption captures the variability introduced by different co-CFO
values in practical systems. To provide additional clarity, Fig 7a focuses on row 20 of the Π1,1
matrix shown in Fig 6a, illustrating the normalized amplitude for this specific row. Mean-
while, Fig 7b presents the corresponding phase angles for the same row, as depicted in Fig 7a.
These figures together offer a detailed insight into the behavior of the matrix for individual
subcarriers, facilitating a deeper understanding of the DWT’s response to co-CFOs.

Fig 6. a: The normalized magnitude against the sub-carrier indices of the Π1,1 matrix in the case of DWT. b: The normalized angle against the sub-carrier indices
1,1
of thez Π matrix in the case of DWT.

[Link]

PLOS ONE | [Link] April 17, 2025 12 / 32

PLOS ONE Enhanced DWT-OFDM communication system using wavelet domain equalizer with Co-CFO

1,1
Fig 7. a: The normalized magnitude vs the sub-carrier indices for row number 20 of the Π matrix in the case of DWT illustrated in Fig 6a. b: The normalized
1,1
angle vs the sub-carrier indices for row number 20 of the Π matrix in the case of DWT illustrated in Fig 6b.

[Link]

Fig 8a presents the normalized magnitude plotted against the indices for the Π1,1 matrix
in the context of the DFT. This graphical representation provides a clear visualization of
how the magnitude varies across the elements of the matrix. In contrast, Fig 8b illustrates
the corresponding angles for each of the elements shown in Fig 8a, offering insights into the

Fig 8. a: The normalized magnitude vs the sub-carrier indices of the Π1,1 matrix in the case of DFT. b: The normalized angle vs the sub-carrier indices of the
Π1,1 matrix in the case of DFT.
[Link]

PLOS ONE | [Link] April 17, 2025 13 / 32

PLOS ONE Enhanced DWT-OFDM communication system using wavelet domain equalizer with Co-CFO

phase relationships within the matrix. From these figures, it becomes evident that the BMA
approach is effective when applied to DFT, as it shows a clear and interpretable structure
in both magnitude and phase. However, when considering the case of the DWT, the BMA
appears to be less effective, which is something that will be further explored in the subsequent
simulations. To provide additional clarity, Fig 9a zooms in on row number 20 from Fig 8a,
presenting its normalized amplitude specifically. Fig 9b, in turn, displays the corresponding
angle values for this row, offering a more detailed understanding of the phase information for
a particular subset of the matrix. The analysis in these figures highlights the differences in how
the BMA handles DFT versus DWT, pointing to the need for alternative methods in wavelet-­
based analysis. This will be examined in greater detail in the following sections.
Fig 10a illustrates the BER performance as a function of the regularization parameter (α)
for various SNR values, providing a detailed analysis of how (α) impacts system performance.
To offer a different perspective, Fig 10b presents an elevation view of Fig 10a, specifically
for εmax = 0.1 allowing for a more nuanced examination of the parameter’s behavior. The
LMMSE equalizer, as a benchmark, is represented by the final vector value of α=1/SNR,
which helps to contextualize the proposed adjustments. From Fig 10b, it is clear that the best
BER performance occurs at specific values of α, namely 10-2, 10-3, and 10-4. This indicates that
selecting an optimal α is critical for achieving minimal BER. To determine the most effec-
tive value of α for subsequent simulations, the BER performance across SNR values must be
thoroughly evaluated at these candidate levels. Fig 10c provides further insights by plotting
BER versus SNR for different α values. The results indicate that α=10-2 consistently delivers
optimal performance across a range of SNR conditions, particularly when used with LMMSE
equalization. This robustness makes α=10-2 the ideal choice for the remaining simulations,
ensuring stable and reliable system performance under varying conditions. Moving forward,
our primary focus shifts to evaluating the BMA parameter (τ) with the aim of simplifying the
equalization design. This analysis will contribute to a more efficient and practical implemen-
tation of the equalization process, potentially enhancing overall system usability.

1,1
Fig 9. a: The normalized magnitude vs the sub-carrier indices for row number 20 of the Π . matrix in the case of DFT illustrated in Fig 8a. b: The normalized
1,1
angle vs the sub-carrier indices for row number 20 of the Π . matrix in the case of DFT illustrated in Fig 8b.

[Link]

PLOS ONE | [Link] April 17, 2025 14 / 32

PLOS ONE Enhanced DWT-OFDM communication system using wavelet domain equalizer with Co-CFO

Fig 10. a: The BER against α at different SNR values. b: The elevation view of panel a. c: The side view of panel a.

[Link]

Fig 11a illustrates the BER performance as a function of the BMA parameter (τ) for various
SNR levels, highlighting the relationship between τ and system reliability. Fig 11b provides an
elevation view of Fig 11a, offering a three-dimensional perspective that helps visualize how τ
interacts with SNR to influence BER. This dual representation enhances the understanding
of the trade-offs associated with different τ settings. The last two vector values in Fig 11a and
11b correspond to two critical scenarios: the BMA condition (τ= 15) and the full compensa-
tion scenario (τ= N, where N represents the total number of subcarriers). A clear disparity is
observed in BER performance between these scenarios, with τ= N significantly outperform-
ing τ =15 . This difference underscores the importance of selecting an optimal τ value for
maintaining low BER and achieving robust system performance. For subsequent simulations,
the full compensation scenario (τ= N) will be employed, as it consistently demonstrates

PLOS ONE | [Link] April 17, 2025 15 / 32

PLOS ONE Enhanced DWT-OFDM communication system using wavelet domain equalizer with Co-CFO

Fig 11. a: The BER against SNR at different compensation scenarios. b: The elevation view of panel a. c: The side view of panel a.

[Link]

superior BER performance under varying conditions. This decision is further validated by Fig
11c, which presents BER performance as a function of SNR across different compensation
scenarios. The results clearly show that robust BER performance is only achieved under the
full compensation condition, where τ = N . This analysis emphasizes the critical role of τ
in system design. While partial compensation (e.g., τ=15) offers computational simplicity, it
introduces a significant degradation in BER performance. In contrast, the full compensation
scenario ensures maximum reliability, making it the optimal choice for high-performance
applications. This finding will guide the remaining simulations and provide a foundation for
future investigations into the trade-offs between complexity and performance in compensa-
tion mechanisms.

PLOS ONE | [Link] April 17, 2025 16 / 32

PLOS ONE Enhanced DWT-OFDM communication system using wavelet domain equalizer with Co-CFO

Fig 12a illustrates the BER performance of the proposed JLCRLZF-WDE as a function
of the normalized co-CFO (ε) at various BMA levels (τ). This representation highlights the
impact of different compensation levels on the system’s ability to mitigate co-CFO effects.
To provide a more comprehensive perspective, Fig 12b presents an elevation view of Fig 12a,
focusing on the performance under two key compensation scenarios: partial compensation
( τ =15 ) and full compensation ( τ = N ). At a normalized co-CFO value of ε = 0.1, Fig 12c
offers a side view of Fig 12a, further emphasizing the differences in performance between
these scenarios. These visualizations collectively reveal that the proposed JLCRLZF-WDE
achieves reliable BER performance only when full compensation ( τ = N ) is employed. Partial
compensation ( τ =15 ) results in a noticeable degradation, indicating that insufficient com-
pensation that cannot adequately handle the interference caused by co-CFOs.

Fig 12. a: The BER at different values of the compensation scenarios and CFO. b: The elevation view of panel a. c: The side view of panel a.

[Link]

PLOS ONE | [Link] April 17, 2025 17 / 32

PLOS ONE Enhanced DWT-OFDM communication system using wavelet domain equalizer with Co-CFO

This analysis highlights the critical interplay between the compensation strategy (τ) and the
robustness of the JLCRLZF-WDE. While partial compensation may reduce computational com-
plexity, it fails to provide the level of interference mitigation necessary for acceptable performance,
especially in scenarios with significant co-CFO effects. Conversely, full compensation ensures that
the JLCRLZF-WDE effectively minimizes interference and achieves optimal BER performance
across the tested range of normalized co-CFO values. Based on these findings, the following
simulations will adopt a full compensation strategy ( τ = N ), paired with a regularization param-
eter of α = 10 − 2. This configuration reflects the optimal balance between interference mitigation
and algorithmic robustness, ensuring that the proposed JLCRLZF-WDE performs reliably under
various operating conditions. These insights also pave the way for future studies into the trade-offs
between computational complexity and performance in advanced equalization techniques.
Fig 13 presents the BER performance as a function of SNR for various linear equalizers
operating in both the Frequency Domain (FD) and the Wavelet Domain (WD), providing
a comprehensive comparison of their efficiency under different scenarios. The analysis in
Table 2 uses the LMMSE-WDE as the reference benchmark, which is widely recognized for its
robust performance in mitigating interference and achieving low BER. A closer examination
reveals significant differences in the additional SNR required by each equalizer to match the
BER performance of the LMMSE-WDE at a target BER of 10 − 3. Specifically:
1. LZF-WDE: This equalizer requires approximately 15.35 dB of additional SNR, indicating
a substantial performance gap when compared to the LMMSE-WDE. This large difference

Fig 13. The BER vs the SNR for the considered schemes.

[Link]

PLOS ONE | [Link] April 17, 2025 18 / 32

PLOS ONE Enhanced DWT-OFDM communication system using wavelet domain equalizer with Co-CFO

Table 2. The SNR difference of different equalizers of Fig 4 at BER = 10-3.

Equalizer type Transform type FDE WDE SNR [dB] Diff. [dB]
LMMSE DWT ✓ 14.58 0.00
LZF DWT ✓ 29.93 15.35
LZF DWT ✓ 25.12 10.54
LMMSE DWT ✓ 14.79 0.21
LZF DFT ✓ 29.47 14.89
LMMSE DFT ✓ 23.80 9.22
JLCRLZF DWT ✓ 15.40 0.82
[Link]

highlights the limitations of the LZF-WDE in managing interference effectively, particu-

larly under challenging SNR conditions.
2. LZF-FDE and LMMSE-FDE (DWT): The LZF-FDE requires an additional 10.54 dB,
while the LMMSE-FDE based on the DWT only requires an additional 0.21 dB. This
demonstrates that while both equalizers benefit from operating in the wavelet domain, the
LMMSE-FDE performs significantly closer to the LMMSE-WDE, showcasing the advan-
tages of combining DWT with an LMMSE approach in improving robustness.
3. LZF-FDE and LMMSE-FDE (DFT): These equalizers perform less effectively than their
wavelet-based counterparts. The LZF-FDE requires an additional 14.89 dB, and the
LMMSE-FDE needs 9.22 dB of extra SNR to match the LMMSE-WDE. This substantial
gap emphasizes the inherent limitations of DFT-based equalization in handling interfer-
ence and noise compared to DWT-based techniques.
4. Proposed JLCRLZF-WDE: Notably, the proposed JLCRLZF-WDE demonstrates remark-
able performance, requiring only 0.82 dB of additional SNR to achieve the same BER as the
LMMSE-WDE. This minor difference underscores the effectiveness of the JLCRLZF-WDE
in leveraging advanced design principles to enhance performance, making it a strong con-
tender for practical applications.
This analysis underscores the critical role of domain choice (DWT vs. DFT) and equal-
ization strategy (LZF vs. LMMSE) in determining system performance. The wavelet domain
provides significant advantages, as evidenced by the closer alignment of DWT-based
equalizers to the LMMSE-WDE benchmark. Among all the tested equalizers, the proposed
JLCRLZF-WDE emerges as a highly efficient solution, offering near-parity performance
with the LMMSE-WDE while maintaining a balance between computational complex-
ity and robustness. This finding highlights the potential of JLCRLZF-WDE for advanced
communication systems, particularly in environments where interference and noise present
significant challenges.
Table 2 offers a comparative analysis of the SNR requirements for achieving a BER of 10-3
using different equalizer types across the DWT and DFT transform domains, with both FDE
and WDE approaches. The insights derived from this table reveal significant performance
differences based on the choice of equalizer, transform type, and compensation strategy.
Key Observations
1. Reference Equalizer (LMMSE-WDE, DWT):
◦ The LMMSE-WDE in the DWT domain serves as the performance benchmark with the
lowest SNR requirement (14.58 dB) and a difference of 0 dB. This highlights its effec-
tiveness as an optimal equalizer with robust interference mitigation.

PLOS ONE | [Link] April 17, 2025 19 / 32

PLOS ONE Enhanced DWT-OFDM communication system using wavelet domain equalizer with Co-CFO

2. LZF-WDE (DWT):
◦ The LZF-WDE requires 29.93 dB, which is 15.35 dB higher than the LMMSE-WDE.
This substantial gap underscores the LZF-WDE’s limitations in handling interference
and noise in the wavelet domain compared to the LMMSE-WDE.
3. LZF-FDE (DWT):
◦ It requires 25.12 dB, this configuration reduces the gap to 10.54 dB relative to the
benchmark. While still inferior to the LMMSE-WDE, it demonstrates improved perfor-
mance compared to the LZF-WDE due to the frequency domain equalization strategy.
4. LMMSE-FDE (DWT):
◦ With a minimal additional SNR requirement of 0.21 dB (14.79 dB total), this equalizer
achieves near-parity with the LMMSE-WDE. This showcases the LMMSE-FDE’s ability
to maintain robust performance in the DWT domain with only a slight compromise in
efficiency.
5. Equalizers in the DFT domain:
◦ Both the LZF-FDE and LMMSE-FDE show higher SNR requirements compared to their
DWT counterparts:
• LZF-FDE (DFT): It requires 29.47 dB, 14.89 dB higher than the benchmark.
• LMMSE-FDE (DFT): It requires 23.80 dB, 9.22 dB above the benchmark.
◦ These results emphasize the limitations of DFT-based systems in achieving the same
level of interference suppression and noise resilience as DWT-based systems.
6. Proposed JLCRLZF-WDE (DWT):
◦ The proposed equalizer achieves a strong balance between performance and efficiency,
requiring only 15.40 dB, which is just 0.82 dB higher than the LMMSE-WDE. This
minor difference highlights its ability to effectively handle interference while operating
close to optimal conditions.
Thus, Table 2 demonstrates the clear advantages of the DWT over the DFT for both FDE and
WDE approaches. Equalizers operating in the DWT domain consistently require lower SNR
values to achieve the target BER of 10 − 3, showcasing the wavelet transform’s superior ability
to localize interference and noise in time and frequency. The LMMSE equalizers outperform
the LZF counterparts across all configurations, highlighting the effectiveness of LMMSE in
leveraging optimal weighting strategies for interference mitigation. Among all configurations,
the proposed JLCRLZF-WDE stands out as a near-optimal solution, offering performance that
closely matches the LMMSE-WDE while maintaining design simplicity and computational
efficiency. This analysis underscores the critical role of choosing the appropriate domain
(DWT vs. DFT) and equalizer type to optimize system performance. The findings also validate
the use of the proposed JLCRLZF-WDE as a practical and efficient solution for scenarios
requiring robust BER performance with minimal additional SNR.
Additionally, as Table 3 provides critical insights into the performance of various equalizers
in achieving a BER of 10−4. The LMMSE-WDE in the DWT domain stands out as the optimal
benchmark, requiring the least SNR (17.97 dB). This demonstrates its ability to effectively
suppress interference and manage noise in high-precision communication scenarios. Among
the other equalizers in the DWT domain, the LMMSE-FDE and the proposed JLCRLZF-WDE
perform remarkably well, with SNR requirements of 18.28 dB and 18.24 dB, respectively.

PLOS ONE | [Link] April 17, 2025 20 / 32

PLOS ONE Enhanced DWT-OFDM communication system using wavelet domain equalizer with Co-CFO

Table 3. The SNR difference of different equalizers of Fig 4 at BER = 10-4.

Equalizer type Transform type FDE WDE SNR [dB] Diff. [dB]
LMMSE DWT ✓ 17.97 0.00
LZF DWT ✓ >30 >12.03
LZF DWT ✓ >30 >12.03
LMMSE DWT ✓ 18.28 0.31
LZF DFT ✓ >30 >12.03
LMMSE DFT ✓ >30 >12.03
JLCRLZF DWT ✓ 18.24 0.27
[Link]

Their minimal SNR differences (0.31 dB and 0.27 dB) from the benchmark highlight their
potential as robust alternatives, especially the JLCRLZF-WDE, which balances performance
and simplicity.
In contrast, the LZF-based equalizers (LZF-WDE and LZF-FDE) and all DFT-based equal-
izers exhibit significantly poorer performance, requiring SNR values exceeding 30 dB. This
large disparity underscores the limitations of both the LZF strategy and the DFT transform in
achieving low BER levels, particularly in scenarios demanding high precision. These results
strongly advocate for the use of DWT-based equalizers, as they consistently deliver better
performance due to the wavelet domain’s superior time-frequency resolution and its ability to
localize interference effectively.
Overall, the proposed JLCRLZF-WDE emerges as a practical and efficient solution, offering
near-optimal performance with a minimal SNR penalty compared to the LMMSE-WDE. This
makes it a compelling choice for low-BER communication systems that require high robust-
ness with manageable computational complexity. The findings further emphasize the impor-
tance of selecting appropriate equalization strategies and transform domains to optimize
system performance in demanding communication environments.
Fig 14 provides a detailed comparison of the BER performance for the proposed JLCRLZF-
WDE and the LMMSE-FDE (based on DFT) under varying estimation error levels and SNR
conditions. Each subfigure (i.e., Fig 14a, Fig 14b, and Fig 14c) illustrates the performance
at SNR levels of 15 dB, 20 dB, and 25 dB, respectively. The analysis incorporates estimation
errors ranging from 0% to 100%, which simulate inaccuracies in co-CFO and Rayleigh fading
channel coefficients. These errors are critical in real-world scenarios, where imperfect channel
estimation and synchronization often degrade system performance. By including these fac-
tors, the results offer a practical evaluation of the robustness of the equalizers. The proposed
JLCRLZF-WDE consistently demonstrates superior performance across all scenarios, particu-
larly at higher SNR levels and larger estimation errors (50%-100%). This resilience stems from
its WDE, which provides better time-frequency localization and more effective interference
mitigation than the frequency domain used by the LMMSE-FDE. The JLCRLZF-WDE shows
remarkable stability at SNRs of 20 dB and 25 dB, maintaining low BER despite significant
estimation errors, which highlights its adaptability for high-quality communication systems.
In contrast, the LMMSE-FDE performs reasonably well at low estimation error levels (0%-
20%) but suffers a steep decline as errors increase, particularly at lower SNRs like 15 dB, where
noise and interference are more prominent. Overall, these results underscore the effectiveness
of the proposed JLCRLZF-WDE compared to the conventional LMMSE-FDE. The JLCRLZF-
WDE is a robust and versatile solution, capable of maintaining low BER across a wide range
of SNRs and estimation error scenarios, even under extreme conditions. Its resilience to
channel imperfections and frequency offset errors makes it a strong candidate for modern
communication systems, where reliability and high performance are essential. Conversely, the

PLOS ONE | [Link] April 17, 2025 21 / 32

PLOS ONE Enhanced DWT-OFDM communication system using wavelet domain equalizer with Co-CFO

Fig 14. a: The BER against the estimation error percentage at SNR = 15 dB. b: The BER against the estimation error percentage at SNR = 20 dB. c: The BER against
the estimation error percentage at SNR = 25 dB.

[Link]

LMMSE-FDE’s performance limitations, especially in high-error environments, highlight the

need for more advanced equalization strategies like those employed in the JLCRLZF-WDE.

VI. Complexity analysis

The complexity estimations of various equalizers are presented in this section. Half flops can
be used to execute real multiplication, addition, and division in a single operation [36]. The
quantity of floating-point operations completed in a second is measured in “flops”. The total
count of operations and floating-point operations (flops) related to different mathematical
operation situations is shown in Table 4. Meanwhile, Table 4 outlines the computational steps
involved in basic mathematical operations, such as addition, multiplication, and division, for
both real and complex numbers. It highlights how the complexity increases when dealing with

PLOS ONE | [Link] April 17, 2025 22 / 32

PLOS ONE Enhanced DWT-OFDM communication system using wavelet domain equalizer with Co-CFO

complex arithmetic due to the need for additional operations, such as handling real and imag-
inary components. This table serves as a foundation for understanding the computational cost
of individual operations used in more extensive processes. Table 5 shifts focus to full-­matrix
computations, covering operations like matrix-matrix multiplication, matrix inversion, and
matrix-vector multiplication. It distinguishes between operations on real and complex matri-
ces, emphasizing how the type of matrix and the operation performed influence the overall
computational cost. This table is particularly useful for evaluating the efficiency of matrix-
based algorithms in various applications. So, for each of the subsequent equalizations, compute
the total number of operations and flops for a 2 × 2 MIMO-OFDM network. It should be noted
that all equalizers are implemented for complete matrix implementations (i.e., τ = N ).
However, the complexity analysis aims to estimate the number of flops required, beginning
with the generation of the polar-NRZ bits and continuing through to the estimation of the
recovered bits. The overall processing is quite consistent, but differences arise based on the
type of equalizer used (i.e., LZF, LMMSE, or JLCRLZF) and the domain of the equalizer (i.e.,
FDE or WDE).
The following analysis estimates the flop counts for various common processes at both the
transmitter and receiver sides

Table 4. The number of flops related to different mathematical operations [36].

Number of
Process × ± ÷ Operations Flops
p±q 0 1 0 1 0.5

p ×q 1 0 0 1 0.5

p÷q 0 0 1 1 0.5
1 1 0 1 0.5
p + (q ± jw )
2 0 0 2 1
p ×(q ± jw )
0 2 0 2 1
( p ± jq) ± (w ± jz )
4 2 0 6 3
( p ± jq)×(w ± jz )
0 0 1 2 1
1÷ ( p ± jq)
[Link]

Table 5. The number of flops related to different full-matrix operations [37].

Process Description Full-matrix computation
Number of complex Number of real-complex Total number of
× ∓ × ∓ ÷ Operations Flops
--- --- --- ---
A ∓B A, B ∈ C N ×N
2N 2
2N 2
N2
--- --- ---
A. B N3 N3 8N 3 4N 3
--- N
A −1 N3 N3 N2 8N 3 + 2N 2 + N 4N 3 + N 2 + N / 2
--- --- ---
A. U N2 N2 8N 2 4N 2
--- --- ---
A.V V ∈ R N×1 N2 N2 4N 2 2N 2
V .M M ∈ ℝN × N --- ---
N2 N2 2N 2 N2
[Link]

PLOS ONE | [Link] April 17, 2025 23 / 32

PLOS ONE Enhanced DWT-OFDM communication system using wavelet domain equalizer with Co-CFO

Transmitter side
At the transmitter, the generated polar-NRZ bits are multiplied by the IDWT or the IDFT
matrix [38].
• For IDWT: The multiplication of a vector by a matrix (real-real) requires approximately
flops.
• For IDFT: The multiplication of a vector by a matrix (real-complex) requires approximately
2 flops.

Receiver side
At the receiver, the flops count depends on the equalization method used:
• For WDE: The multiplication of a vector by a matrix (complex-real) requires around 2
flops. Additionally, the operation and solution of the WDE contribute extra flops, but the
exact count for solving the WDE depends on its specific implementation.
• For FDE with DWT: The receiver includes an extra IDFT and DFT operation. Each
of these operations involves a vector-matrix multiplication (complex-complex),
requiring approximately 4flops for each operation. Additionally, the operation
and solution of the FDE contribute extra flops, depending on the specific FDE
algorithm.
• For IDFT at the transmitter: The multiplication of a vector by a matrix (real-complex)
requires 2 flops. On the receiver side, the DFT operation involves a vector-matrix multipli-
cation (complex-complex), which requires approximately 4 flops, along with the operation
and solution of the FDE.

Total flops for each System

Now, let’s compute the total number of flops for each system, considering the respective
equalizer and equalizer domain:
1. System with WDE and IDWT at transmitter:
• Transmitter: IDWT (real-real vector-matrix multiplication): flops.
• Receiver: WDE (complex-real vector-matrix multiplication): flops, plus the WDE
operation and solution (which can vary depending on implementation, but let’s assume
a constant factor ). Thus, the total flops: 3N2 + γWDE.

2. System with FDE and IDWT at transmitter:

• Transmitter: IDWT (real-real vector-matrix multiplication): flops.
• Receiver: FDE with DWT, IDFT, and DFT operations. For each, the vector-matrix
(complex-complex) multiplication requires 4 flops, and the vector-matrix (complex-­
real) multiplication requires 2 flops. Thus, for DWT and both IDFT, DFT, the total flops
are 10N 2 flops, plus the FDE operation and solution (with a constant factor γ FDE ).
Thus, the total flops: 11N 2 + γ FDE

3. System with FDE and IDFT at Transmitter:

• Transmitter: IDFT (real-complex vector-matrix multiplication): 2N 2 flops.

PLOS ONE | [Link] April 17, 2025 24 / 32

PLOS ONE Enhanced DWT-OFDM communication system using wavelet domain equalizer with Co-CFO

• Receiver: FDE with DFT operations: The vector-matrix (complex-complex) multiplica-

tion requires 4 N 2 flops, plus the FDE operation and solution ( γ FDE ).
Total flops: 5N 2 + γ FDE
In each case, the constants γ WDE . and γ FDE represent the additional flops involved in
solving the WDE and FDE algorithms. These constants (i.e., γ WDE or γ FDE ) depend on the
specific algorithm and its implementation (i.e., the BMA bandwidth).

A. The LZF
The LZF general solution matrix may be expressed as follows:

−1
CLZF = (Π H Π) ΠH (24)

where Π ∈ CiN× jN contains the IRM in the case of WDE, or Fourier transform of the IRM in
the case of FDE. According to Eq. (24), entails the production of two complex matrices via
matrix multiplication and matrix inversion. For simplicity, we start with i = j =1 . Multi-
plying two complex matrices requires 16N 3 operations, according to Tables 4 and 5. Com-
plex matrix inversion necessitates 8N 3 + 2N 2 + N operations. The matrix inversion may
be validated using the Singular Value Decomposition (SVD) concept [37]. The LZF solution
matrix is multiplied by the received complex vector after the removal of the CP. This step
involves a vector-matrix multiplication (complex-complex), which requires 8 M 2 operations.
Consequently, the total number of operations to construct the LZF equalizer solution matrix
and multiply it by the received vector amounts to 24 N 3 + 10N 2 + N , corresponding to
12N 3 + 5N 2 + 0.5N flops. Note that, the primary general challenge of LZF equalization is the
noise increase problem produced by direct matrix inversion.

B. The LMMSE
The LMMSE’s solution matrix may be expressed as follows:
−1
 Rz 
 
CLMMSE = Π H Π + 2 I jN× jN  ΠH (25)
 σx 


 σ 2 
 x
where the SNR value is represented by the term   , the AWGN covariance matrix is
 R 
 z
represented by R z = E {z .z } , the expectation of # is represented by E {#} , and the trans-
H

mitted signal power is represented by σ x2 . The discrepancy between Eqs. (24, 25) represents
an estimate of the SNR values, that might have caused a processing time delay in comparison
to LZF besides the addition of the SNR to the identity matrix I jN× jN . As a result, the LMMSE
needs 12N 3 + 5N 2 + N flops in addition to the SNR computation.
Now, let’s calculate the number of operations/flops for various equalizer types for a general
i × j MIMO configuration as follows:
1. The LZF-FDE based on the DWT. As previously mentioned, at the transmitter side,
each branch requires N 2 flops. Therefore, for i transmitted branches, the total number of
flops is iN 2 flops. On the receiver side, j branches are needed at the receiver side, which
requires j IDFTs, j DFTs, and j DWTs, in addition to the solution matrix for the LZF
equalizer. The computational cost of the requires j IDFTs, j DFTs, and j DWTs is j10N 2
3 2
flops. The solution matrix of the LZF equalizer requires γ FDE = 12( jN ) + 5( jN ) + 0.5( jN )

PLOS ONE | [Link] April 17, 2025 25 / 32

PLOS ONE Enhanced DWT-OFDM communication system using wavelet domain equalizer with Co-CFO

flops. Therefore, for an i × j MIMO configuration, the total number of flops is

3 2
12( jN ) + 5( jN ) + j10N 2 + iN 2 + 0.5( jN ) .
2. The LMMSE-FDE based on the DWT. The number of the flops for the case
of LMMSE-FDE based on DWT is similar than that of the LZF-FDE based on DWT
in addition to the SNR value calculation and jN flops. Thus, this corresponds to
3 2
12( jN ) + 5( jN ) + j10N 2 + iN 2 + 1.5( jN ) flops.
3. The LZF-WDE. The LZF-WDE requires the same number of flops as the LZF-
FDE, but without the need for DFT and IDFT processing. This is because the LZF-
WDE uses the DWT instead. Therefore, the total computational cost is given by
3 2
12( jN ) + 5( jN ) + j2N 2 + iN 2 + 0.5( jN ) flops.
4. The LMMSE-WDE. Similarly, the LMMSE-WDE requires the same number of flops
as the LMMSE-FDE, but without the need for DFT and IDFT processing, as it uses the DWT
3 2
instead. Therefore, the computational cost is 12( jN ) + 5( jN ) + j2N 2 + iN 2 + 1.5( jN ) flops,
in addition to the processing time required for SNR estimation.
5. The JLCRLZF-WDE. Similarly, the JLCRLZF-WDE needs the same number of flops
3 2
as that of the LMMSE-WDE, which 12( jN ) + 5( jN ) + j2N 2 + iN 2 + 1.5( jN ) flops with no
SNR calculation required.
6. The LZF-FDE based on the DFT. At the transmitter side, each branch requires
2N 2 flops. Therefore, for i transmitted branches, the total number of flops is i2N 2
flops. On the receiver side, j branches are needed at the receiver side, which requires j
DFTs, in addition to the solution matrix for the LZF equalizer. The computational cost
of the requires j DFTs is j 4 N 2 flops. The solution matrix of the LZF equalizer requires
3 2
γ FDE = 12( jN ) + 5( jN ) + 0.5( jN ) flops. Therefore, for an i × j MIMO configuration, the
3 2
total number of flops is 12( jN ) + 5( jN ) + j 4 N 2 + i2N 2 + 0.5( jN ) .
7. The LMMSE-FDE based on the DFT. Likewise,
3 2
12( jN ) + 5( jN ) + j 4 N 2 + i2N 2 + 1.5( jN ) flops are needed for the LMMSE-FDE based on
DFT in addition to the SNR value calculation.
Table 6 presents the computational requirements, expressed as the number of flops, for
various equalization methods in an i × j MIMO system configuration. The table compares
different combinations of equalizers (e.g., LZF, LMMSE, JLCRLZF), transform methods
(e.g., DWT or DFT), and equalization domains (e.g., WDE or FDE). It provides a detailed
breakdown of the complexity associated with each approach, highlighting how the choice of
equalizer, transform, and domain affects the overall computational demand. This comparison
is essential for evaluating the trade-offs between computational efficiency and system perfor-
mance in different MIMO equalization schemes.
As shown in Table 6, all the systems presented exhibit a computational complexity of order
3
N , which implies that their computational demands become comparable for large values of
N. To better understand the impact of MIMO configuration and data length N on the compu-
tational load, we analyze the proposed JLCRLZF-WDE system. Fig 15 illustrates the number
of flops for various i × j MIMO configurations and different lengths of the transmitted data
vector N, assuming i = j for simplicity. The figure highlights a clear trend: the number of flops
increases as N, i, or j grows. This increase is expected, as larger data lengths and more complex
MIMO configurations demand greater computational resources for processing. The analysis
underscores the importance of balancing computational efficiency and performance when scal-
ing MIMO systems, particularly for scenarios involving high data rates or large-scale antenna
arrays.
The percentage reduction in simulated time for each type of equalizer compared to the
proposed JLCRLZF-WDE is as follows:

PLOS ONE | [Link] April 17, 2025 26 / 32

PLOS ONE Enhanced DWT-OFDM communication system using wavelet domain equalizer with Co-CFO

Table 6. The number of flops for different equalization methods.

Type of Number of flops
Equalizer Transform Equalization
LZF DWT WDE 3 2
12( jN ) + 5( jN ) + j2N 2 + iN 2 + 0.5( jN )
LMMSE DWT WDE 3 2
12( jN ) + 5( jN ) + j2N 2 + iN 2 + 1.5( jN )
LZF DWT FDE 3 2
12( jN ) + 5( jN ) + j10N 2 + iN 2 + 0.5( jN )
LMMSE DWT FDE 3 2
12( jN ) + 5( jN ) + j10N 2 + iN 2 + 1.5( jN )
LZF DFT FDE 3 2
12( jN ) + 5( jN ) + j 4 N 2 + i2N 2 + 0.5( jN )
LMMSE DFT FDE 3 2
12( jN ) + 5( jN ) + j 4 N 2 + i2N 2 + 1.5( jN )
JLCRLZF DWT WDE 3 2
12( jN ) + 5( jN ) + j2N 2 + iN 2 + 1.5( jN )
[Link]

t 2 − t1
•%= % (26)
t1

where t1 represents the simulation time of the proposed JLCRLZF-WDE and t 2 rep-
resents the simulation time of the comparable equalizer. The negative value of the simulation
time in Table 7 indicates that the comparative equalizer takes less time than the reference,
which is the proposed JLCRLZF-WDE. Table 7 compares various equalization methods for
a 2 × 2 MIMO configuration, focusing on simulation time, efficiency (• %) , and the inclu-
sion of SNR estimation. The methods are categorized by the type of equalizer (e.g., LZF,
LMMSE, JLCRLZF), the transform method (DWT or DFT), and the equalization domain
(WDE or FDE). LZF with DWT and WDE demonstrates one of the shortest simulation times
(21.58 ms), while LMMSE with DWT and FDE has the longest (24.83 ms), indicating that the
choice of equalizer and domain significantly impacts processing speed. Regarding efficiency,
LZF with DWT and FDE shows the lowest (-4.98%), whereas LMMSE with DWT and FDE
achieves the highest (12.4%), showcasing the trade-offs between computational cost and per-
formance. Additionally, some methods, such as LMMSE with DWT and WDE or JLCRLZF
with DWT and WDE, incorporate SNR estimation, offering better adaptability to changing
channel conditions. Overall, for a 2 × 2 MIMO configuration, the selection of an equalization
method depends on balancing computational demands, efficiency, and the need for SNR
estimation.
After discussing the complexity analysis, we believe that certain modifications related to
the concept of BMA could be implemented to reduce the computational complexity of the
proposed JLCRLZF-WDE in some way as many zeros are present in the matrix to be used
for equalization process. Incorporating BMA techniques may lead to more efficient compu-
tations, optimizing the overall performance. Additionally, there are several other limitations
in the current approach that could be addressed and optimized in future work as Adaptive
techniques. The proposed JLCRLZF-WDE could benefit from adaptive algorithms that adjust
to the specific conditions of the channel or signal environment. For example, an adaptive
approach could dynamically adjust the degree of approximation in the BMA or the size of the
matrix, depending on the SNR or the channel conditions, leading to a more efficient computa-
tional approach in varying environments.
The practical relevance of the proposed JLCRLZF-WDE can be seen in its potential
applications in real-world wireless communication systems. For instance, in millimeter-wave

PLOS ONE | [Link] April 17, 2025 27 / 32

PLOS ONE Enhanced DWT-OFDM communication system using wavelet domain equalizer with Co-CFO

Fig 15. The flops number at different values of the channel configuration and length of the transmitted bits.

[Link]

Table 7. The average simulated time for different equalization methods.

Type of Simulation time for each run (m sec) η% SNR Est.
Equalizer Transform Equalization
LZF DWT WDE 21.58 -2.31 ×
LMMSE DWT WDE 22.79 3.17 ✓
LZF DWT FDE 20.99 -4.98 ×
LMMSE DWT FDE 24.83 12.4 ✓
LZF DFT FDE 21.91 -0.81 ×
LMMSE DFT FDE 22.37 1.27 ✓
JLCRLZF DWT WDE 22.09 0.00 ×
[Link]

communication scenarios, such as 5G and beyond, the JLCRLZF-WDE’s ability to miti-

gate co-CFO and ISI while reducing computational complexity makes it highly suitable for
high-frequency, high-speed networks with dense deployments. Similarly, in WSNs, where
energy efficiency and reliable communication are critical, the proposed approach enhances
spectral efficiency and reduces power consumption, aligning with the operational constraints
of such networks. Furthermore, its simplicity and computational efficiency make it feasible for
hardware implementation on devices like Field-Programmable Gate Arrays (FPGAs) and Dig-
ital Signal Processors (DSPs). By addressing challenges like imperfect channel estimation and

PLOS ONE | [Link] April 17, 2025 28 / 32

PLOS ONE Enhanced DWT-OFDM communication system using wavelet domain equalizer with Co-CFO

high Doppler effects, the JLCRLZF-WDE demonstrates robust performance under practical
conditions, as highlighted in updated simulations. These capabilities make it a strong candi-
date for applications in vehicular communication systems, scalable massive MIMO systems,
and other next-generation wireless technologies, where low latency and resilience to interfer-
ence are essential.

VII. Conclusion
In this study, we introduced the JLCRLZF-WDE for MIMO-DWT-OFDM systems and com-
pared its performance against various equalizers through multiple evaluations. The proposed
JLCRLZF-WDE effectively integrates the equalization and co-CFO compensation processes.
It is specifically designed to address challenges such as co-CFO, ISI, co-channel interference,
and noise. To achieve a BER of 10-4, the traditional LMMSE-FDE based on DWT necessitates
an additional SNR of approximately 12.03 dB. Notably, the JLCRLZF-WDE demonstrates
a significant reduction in simulation time, approximately 12.4% less than the conventional
LMMSE-FDE based on DWT. Furthermore, computer simulations indicate that the JLCRLZF-
WDE offers improved computational efficiency compared to other equalizers. This balance
between complexity and BER performance presents a viable option for future advancements
in MIMO-DWT-OFDM systems.
For future work, the proposed JLCRLZF-WDE can be extended and optimized for other
types of fading channels, such as Rician or Nakagami, to further validate its performance in
diverse communication environments. Future work on the JLCRLZF-WDE method could
explore several optimizations to enhance its performance. These include integrating advanced
channel estimation algorithms to improve equalization accuracy, especially in challenging
wireless environments with severe impairments. Additionally, refining the BMA by exploit-
ing matrix sparsity could reduce computational complexity while maintaining accuracy. The
inclusion of adaptive algorithms would allow the method to dynamically adjust to varying
channel conditions, improving efficiency across diverse environments. Future research could
also evaluate alternative wavelet transforms, such as biorthogonal or symlet wavelets, for bet-
ter time-frequency localization. Expanding the method to support Non-Orthogonal Multiple
Access (NOMA) would enable its application in next-generation communication systems.
Investigating non-linear equalization techniques, such as decision-feedback equalization or
neural network-based approaches, could further enhance performance in highly non-linear
channels. Finally, extending the framework to accommodate higher-order MIMO systems
and considering its performance under 5G or beyond networks would offer insights into its
scalability and relevance to next-generation systems.

Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge the Deanship of Graduate Studies and Scientific Research,
Jazan University, Saudi Arabia, Project Number: GSSRD-24.

Author contributions
Conceptualization: Khaled Ramadan, Emad S. Hassan.
Data curation: Khaled Ramadan, Emad S. Hassan.
Formal analysis: Khaled Ramadan, Emad S. Hassan.
Investigation: Khaled Ramadan, Emad S. Hassan.
Methodology: Khaled Ramadan, Emad S. Hassan.
Project administration: Khaled Ramadan, Emad S. Hassan.

PLOS ONE | [Link] April 17, 2025 29 / 32

PLOS ONE Enhanced DWT-OFDM communication system using wavelet domain equalizer with Co-CFO

Resources: Khaled Ramadan, Emad S. Hassan.

Software: Khaled Ramadan, Emad S. Hassan.
Supervision: Emad S. Hassan.
Validation: Khaled Ramadan, Emad S. Hassan.
Visualization: Khaled Ramadan, Emad S. Hassan.
Writing – original draft: Khaled Ramadan, Emad S. Hassan.
Writing – review & editing: Khaled Ramadan, Emad S. Hassan.

References
1. Hassan ES. Multi-carrier communication systems with examples in MATLAB®: A new perspective. vol.
47, CRC Press, Taylor & Francis. 2019, p. 26–35, ISBN 9781498735322.
2. Trivedi VK, Ramadan K, Kumar P, Dessouky MI, Abd El-Samie FE. Enhanced OFDM-NOMA for next
generation wireless communication: A study of PAPR reduction and sensitivity to CFO and estimation
errors. AEU - Int J Electron Commun. 2019;102:9–24. [Link]
3. Hassan ES, Alharbi AA, Oshaba AS, El-Emary A. enhancing smart irrigation efficiency: a new WSN-
based localization method for water conservation. Water. 2024;16(5):672. [Link]
w16050672
4. Tang Z. OFDM communication system based on FPGA. In 2023 3rd Asia-Pacific Conference on Com-
munications Technology and Computer Science (ACCTCS). 2023, p. 666–70.
5. Sharma V, Sergeyev S, Kaur J. Transmission, adaptive 2×2 MIMO employed wavelet-ofdm-radio over
fibre. IEEE Access. 2020;823336–45.
6. Li A, Shieh W, Tucker RS. Wavelet packet transform-based OFDM for optical communications. J Light-
wave Technol. 2010;28(24):3519–28.
7. Wils M, Sharma M, Moonen M. Per-wavelet equalization for discrete wavelet transform based
multi-carrier modulation systems. IEEE Open J Signal Process. 2023;452–60. [Link]
ojsp.2023.3242122
8. Ramadan K, Dessouky MI, Abd El-Samie FE. Non-linear equalisation and CFO compensation for
MIMO-OFDM communication systems based on DWT. Int J Electron. 2020;108(1):115–38. [Link]
org/10.1080/00207217.2020.1756458
9. Vishvaksenan KS, Natarajan K, Sathiyarajan M, Vengatraman M. Performance of MIMO MC-CDMA
system for DWT technique based colour image transmission over correlated frequency-selective
channel. In 2014 International Conference on Communication and Signal Processing, Melmaruvathur,
India, 2014.
10. Parveen N, Abdullah K, Islam R, Islam Boby R. Performance of MIMO DWT for Millimeter Wave Com-
munication System. In 2019 IEEE 14th Malaysia International Conference on Communication (MICC),
Selangor, Malaysia. 2019.
11. Simon J, Prabakaran N. Telemedicine application based on MIMO-OFDM system along with DWT. In
Proceedings of the 2020 Fourth International Conference on I-SMAC (IoT in Social, Mobile, Analytics
and Cloud), Palladam, India. 2020.
12. Wachid AR, Asfani DA, Negara IMY, Ksatria AB. Design and implementation of arcing detection on
low voltage with evaluation of discrete wavelet transform. In 2024 International Seminar on Intelligent
Technology and Its Applications (ISITIA), Mataram, Indonesia. 2024, p. 536–41.
13. Rana ASTK. Comparisons of wavelets and algorithms based on wavelets and comparing the results
with JPEG. In Proceedings of the 2017 International Conference on Energy, Communication, Data
Analytics and Soft Computing (ICECDS), Chennai, India. 2017.
14. Hassan ES, Dessouky AM, Fathi H, Salama GM, Oshaba AS, El-Emary A, et al. Improved hybrid
approach for enhancing protein-coding regions identification in DNA sequences. Current Bioinformat-
ics. 2025;20(3):208–28. [Link]
15. Singhal R p. s. a. M t. A. Comparison of different wavelets for watermarking of colored images. In 2011
3rd International Conference on Electronics Computer Technology, Kanyakumari, India. 2011.
16. Todorova RPM. Influence of the sampling period in the identification of a dual-mass DC electrome-
chanical system using Symlet wavelets. In 2020 International Conference Automatics and Informatics
(ICAI), Varna, Bulgaria. 2020.

PLOS ONE | [Link] April 17, 2025 30 / 32

PLOS ONE Enhanced DWT-OFDM communication system using wavelet domain equalizer with Co-CFO

17. Sridhar DNS. P. r. k. K. V. R. Coiflets, artificial neural networks and predictive coding based hybrid
image compression methodology. In 2014 2nd International Conference on Devices, Circuits and
Systems (ICDCS). 2014.
18. He H, Wan M, Xu Y, Kong X, Liu Z, Chen Q, et al. WTAPNet: Wavelet Transform-Based Augmented
Perception Network for Infrared Small-Target Detection. IEEE Trans Instrum Meas. 2024;73:1–17.
[Link]
19. TODOROVA RPM. Biorthogonal wavelet filtration of signals used in the industrial automation sys-
tems. In 2019 16th Conference on Electrical Machines, Drives and Power Systems (ELMA), Varna,
Bulgaria. 2019.
20. Leontiev AN. The use of discrete Meyer wavelet for speech segmentation. In 2019 International
Multi-Conference on Industrial Engineering and Modern Technologies (FarEastCon), Vladivostok,
Russia. 2019.
21. Li X, Zhang P, Hui E, Chen G. Based on Embedded Zerotree Wavelet Coding Data Compression
Algorithm Research of NC Machine Tool Control System. In 2019 4th International Conference on
Mechanical, Control and Computer Engineering (ICMCCE), Hohhot, China. 2019, p. 936–9364.
[Link]
22. Cho AS a. WAPY. Coding the wavelet spatial orientation tree with low computational complexity. In
Data Compression Conference, Snowbird, UT. 2005.
23. Lamsrichan TSP. Embedded color image coding with context adaptive wavelet difference reduc-
tion. 2009 International Symposium on Intelligent Signal Processing and Communication Systems
(ISPACS), Kanazawa, Japan. 2009.
24. Usman A, Baig S, Umer T, Ding Z. Performance analysis of discrete wavelet transform for downlink
non-orthogonal multiple access in 5G networks. IET Communications. 2020;14(10):.
25. Dang S, Zhou J, Shihada B, Alouini M. Toward spectral and energy efficient 5G networks using
relayed OFDM with index modulation. Frontiers in Communications and Networks. 2021;2:635295.
[Link]
26. Mori C, Sawahasi M, Miki N, Suyama S. Performance of iterative decision feedback channel estima-
tion in turbo FDE for DFT-spread OFDM. IEICE Trans Commun. 2024:1–13. [Link]
transcom.2024ebp3052
27. Yılmaz G, Yılmaz AÖ. Quasi-Newton FDE in one-bit pseudo-randomly quantized massive MIMO-
OFDM systems. IEEE Commun Lett. 2024;28(4):917–21. [Link]
28. Ou J, Zhou B, Zhang X, Liao X. Performance improvement of multi-level redundant discrete wavelet
transform OFDM system by using LDPC encoding and belief propagation algorithm. In 2023 8th Inter-
national Conference on Computer and Communication Systems (ICCCS), Guangzhou - China. 2023,
p. 269–73. [Link]
29. Chen W, Sai F, Huang Z. Comparative Analysis of Performance of DWT-OFDM and DFT-OFDM.
In 2023 3rd Asia-Pacific Conference on Communications Technology and Computer Science
(ACCTCS), Shenyang, China. 2023684–90. [Link]
30. Zheng T, He C, Jing L, Dong X, Cao X, Yan Q. Adaptive Equalization with Interference Reconstruction
and Cancellation Based on MSER Criterion for OTFS System. In 2024 IEEE International Conference
on Signal Processing, Communications and Computing (ICSPCC), Bali, Indonesia. 20241–5. https://
[Link]/10.1109/icspcc62635.2024.10770334
31. Chafii M, Harbi YJ, Burr AG. Wavelet-OFDM vs. OFDM: Performance comparison. In 2016 23rd Inter-
national Conference on Telecommunications (ICT), Thessaloniki, Greece. 2016.
32. Cao Z, Tureli U, Yao Y-D. Low-Complexity Orthogonal Spectral Signal Construction for Generalized
OFDMA Uplink With Frequency Synchronization Errors. IEEE Trans Veh Technol. 2007;56(3):1143–54.
[Link]
33. Swamy VN, Rigge P, Ranade G, Nikolic B, Sahai A. Wireless Channel Dynamics and Robustness
for Ultra-Reliable Low-Latency Communications. IEEE J Select Areas Commun. 2019;37(4):705–20.
[Link]
34. Dent P, Bottomley GE, Croft T. Jakes fading model revisited. Electron Lett (UK). 1993;29(13):1162–3.
[Link]
35. 3rd Generation Partnership Project. 3rd Generation Partnership Project, 3GPP TS 25.101 – Technical
Specification Group Radio Access Network; User Equipment Radio Transmission and Reception
(Release 7), Section B.2.2. Sep 2007.
36. Elshokry AM. Complexity and performance evaluation of detection schemes for spatial multiplexing
MIMO systems. Islamic University Gaza, Palestine, 2010.

PLOS ONE | [Link] April 17, 2025 31 / 32

PLOS ONE Enhanced DWT-OFDM communication system using wavelet domain equalizer with Co-CFO

37. Zhen Z, Zhang Y, Liu X, Ling Y, Yang M. Numerical computation, symbolic computation and
result analysis of Jordan decomposition of time-varying matrices. In 2020 IEEE International
Conference on Mechatronics and Automation (ICMA). 2020, p. 1529–35. [Link]
icma49215.2020.9233728
38. Li B, Jiang Z, Chen J. On performance of sparse fast fourier transform algorithms using the flat win-
dow filter. IEEE Access. 2020;8:79134–46. [Link]

PLOS ONE | [Link] April 17, 2025 32 / 32