Mmimo Spring School Luc Deneire

Massive MIMO
low cost and high energy efciency

Luc Deneire
Universit e de Nice Sophia Antipolis
Laboratoire I3S
March 2014
Luc Deneire 1
Massive MIMO : achieving high power efciency and low cost ?
First element : Diversity enhances (some) spectral / (mostly) power

efciency (MISO/SIMO)
Second element : MIMO enhances (mostly) spectral efciency
Third element : MultiUser MIMO enhances (mostly) power efciency
Fourth element : Massive MIMO enhances (mostly) power efciency
Last element : low cost thanks to resistance to hardware impairments
Another last element : easy processing with classical beamforming

Luc Deneire 2
Massive MIMO : achieving high power efciency and low cost ?
1 Massive MIMO : achieving high power efciency and low cost ?
2 MISO/SIMO : (Spatial) Diversity
Diversity best illustrated on Rayleigh Fading Channel
Beam-Forming / Beam-Steering
SIMO : Multiple antenna receiver
3 MIMO : Spatial Diversity and/or Spatial Multiplexing
MIMO : Multiple antenna emitter and receiver
Diversity vs Spatial Multiplexing
4 MU-MIMO : MultiUser Diversity
MU-MIMO : Single Antenna Mobiles : Spatial Division Multiplexing
Access
Downlink : the realm of Precoding
5 Massive MIMO
Uplink : Interference and noise vanishes
6 Massive MIMO in the Downlink
Channel estimation in TDD
Inuence of imperfect CSI ]
7 Pilot contamination : due to linear processing
8 Massive MIMO seems to resist to Hardware impairments
Hardware impairments
An analysis of resistance to hardware impairments
9 Massive MIMO and FDD : classical beamforming
Problem in FDD : Feedback and coherence block-length
System Model
JSDM with Eigen-Beamforming
Luc Deneire 3
MISO/SIMO : (Spatial) Diversity
MISO/SIMO : Spatial Diversity
R =
X
2
+ Y
2
is a Rayleigh r.v. if X and Y are independant Gaussian r.v.
with mean 0 and variance
2
Then the pdf of R is
f
R
(r ) =
r
2
exp
r
2
2
2
.
Luc Deneire 4
Rayleigh Fading Channel
Flat Fading channel
y = h.x +
where
x is the input signal (here symbols)
||h|| is a Rayleigh Fading random variable
The phase of h is a uniform r.v. on [0, ]
is a zero-mean Gaussian Noise

Luc Deneire 5
Bit Error Probability on AWGN and Rayleigh Fading Channel
if y = x + where is zero mean Gaussian with variance N

o
/2 :
BEP = .5 erfc
_
_
E
b
N
o
_
= .5 erfc
_
SNR
_
.
if y = h.x + , where h is a Rayleigh r.v. :

BEP = .5
_

0
erfc
_
_
r
2
E
b
N
o
_
f
R
(r )dr =
1
_
/(1 + )
2
.
where is the mean Signal to Noise Ratio = E
_
r
2
E
b
N
o
_
if >> 1 then BEP .5(1 (1

1
2
)) =
1
4
Luc Deneire 6
Luc Deneire 7
L branches diversity : suppose you have 2 copies of x through two
independent channels h = [h
1
h
2
] (y = h
1
x + h
2
x + )
Then the optimal receiver (if h
i
known) is
h
||h||
y = ||h||x +
h
||h||
leading to BEP = 0.5 erfc||h||SNR.

where ||h||
2
=
L
l =1
|h
l
|
2
is a Chi-square distributed r.v. with 2.L degrees of
freedom, whose density is given by f (x) =
1
(L1)!
x
L1
e
x
, x 0.
After computation, the Error Probability is computed as :
BEP =
_
2L 1
L
_
1
(4.SNR)
L
Luc Deneire 8
Luc Deneire 9
Capacity of a SISO channel
Systme SISO
TX RX
h
h
x
n
y

S
E
C = log
2
(1 + ||h||
2
) en Sh/2D
avec =
E
s
N
0
.
Pour le canal de Rayleigh, la capacit est une variable alatoire
CNAM Cours ELE 203. p.14/77
C = log
2
(1 +||h||
2
SNR) bits/s/Hertz/dimension
Luc Deneire 10
Capacity of a MISO channel
Systme MISO
TX RX
TX 1
TX N
t
TX 2
RX 1
Systme MISO
1
h
1
x
n
y
S
t
E
N

2
h
2
x
Nt
h
Nt
x
S
t
E
N

S
t
E
N

C = log
2
(1 +

N
t
N
t
i=1
||h
i
||
2
)
C = log
2
(1 +
SNR
N
t
N
t
l
||h
l
||
2
) bits/s/Hertz/dimension
Luc Deneire 11
Beam Steering / Beamforming as a MISO channel
Beam steering : change the phase to create constructive interference
Hypothesis : Low angular dispertion, small separation between

antennas (/2 ), correlated antennas.
Fixed matched Spatial Filter
Based on Direction of Arrival
Need for DOA pursuit
Some simple devices exist (Buttler Matrix)
A lot of litterature (Beamforming : change phase and amplitude : you can

steer and Null-Steer)
Luc Deneire 12
Capacity of a SIMO channel
Systme SIMO
TX RX
TX 1
RX 1
RX N
r
RX 2
Systme SIMO
1
h
x
1
n
1
y
( )
S
E
2
h
Nr
h
2
y
Nr
y
2
n
Nr
n
la capacit est atteinte par combinaison linaire optimale (MRC) : on
multiplie chaque y
i
par h
instant
=
E
s
(
N
r
i=1
||h
i
||
2
)
2
N
0
(
N
r
i=1
||h
i
||
2
)
=
E
s
(
N
r
i=1
||h
i
||
2
)
N
0
=
N
r
i=1
||h
i
||
2
C = log
2
(1 +
N
r
i=1
||h
i
||
2
)
Considering a MRC (Maximum Ratio Combining)
C = log
2
(1 + SNR
N
t
l
||h
l
||
2
) bits/s/Hertz/dimension
Luc Deneire 13
Example of a Space-Time SIMO Receiver operation
24 CHAPITRE 3. CONTRIBUTIONDTAILLE
E(z)
Receiver
t=0
t=
FIG. 3.5 La multiplication du signal reu par une matrice polynomiale permet de combiner de faon optimale
les diffrentes rpliques du signal mis.
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40
!7
10
!6
10
!5
10
!4
10
!3
10
!2
10
!1
10
0
10
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40
!7
10
!6
10
!5
10
!4
10
!3
10
!2
10
!1
10
0
10
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40
!7
10
!6
10
!5
10
!4
10
!3
10
!2
10
!1
10
0
10
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40
!7
10
!6
10
!5
10
!4
10
!3
10
!2
10
!1
10
0
10
SER
AWGN
Div : 4 Div : 2
Div : 1
Performance of QPSK in multipath Rayleigh fading channel
SNR per symbol
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40
!7
10
!6
10
!5
10
!4
10
!3
10
!2
10
!1
10
0
10
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40
!7
10
!6
10
!5
10
!4
10
!3
10
!2
10
!1
10
0
10
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40
!7
10
!6
10
!5
10
!4
10
!3
10
!2
10
!1
10
0
10
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40
!7
10
!6
10
!5
10
!4
10
!3
10
!2
10
!1
10
0
10
SER
AWGN
Div : 4 Div : 2
Div : 1
Performance of QPSK in multipath Rayleigh fading channel
SNR per symbol
FIG. 3.6 Le gain de diversit est la pente de la courbe du SER vs SNR (dans une chelle logarithmique)
Luc Deneire 14
MIMO : Spatial Diversity and/or Spatial Multiplexing
MIMO: Spatial Diversity and/or Spatial Multiplexing
Simple model of the MIMO channel
3.3. MULTIPLEINPUTMULTIPLEOUTPUT(MIMO) : DELADIVERSITAUMULTIPLEXAGESPATIAL25
3.3 Multiple Input Multiple Output (MIMO) : de la diversit au multiplexage
spatial
La diversit spatio-temporelle introduite ci-dessous se base implicitement sur une diversit au rcepteur. tant
donn le cot matriel induit par les antennes multiples (entre autre la duplication des front-ends analogiques),
il tait naturel dintroduire de la diversit lmetteur dans le cadre des communications cellulaires (les an-
tennes multiples tant alors introduites dans les stations de base). La diversit dmission [67, 75, 99] consiste
simplement mettre une version diffrente des donnes sur chaque antenne mettrice, charge pour le rcep-
teur de rcuprer les donnes utiles en sparant les signaux mis et en les combinant de la meilleure faon pos-
sible. Cette diversit dmission est principalement le domaine dapplication du codage spatio-temporel [95].
Enn, en combinant la diversit lmission et la rception, on arrive aux systmes MIMO, qui utilisent un
rseau dantennes lmission et la rception, multipliant ainsi le gain de diversit (gure 3.7).
T
X
H
X
R
FIG. 3.7 Un systme MIMO sans ls : exploitation de la diversit dmission et de rception.
Un autre manire dexploiter la structure des systmes MIMO est de transmettre des signaux de donnes
diffrents sur chaque antenne dmission et de rcuprer ces signaux sur le rseau du rcepteur, introduisant
donc un multiplexage spatial(gure 3.8).
T
X
H
X
R S
/
P
P
/
S
FIG. 3.8 Un systme MIMO sans ls : exploitation du multiplexage spatial
En effet, comme on le savait de par le SDMA (Spatial Division Multiplexing Access, e.g. [97]) et de la
littrature sur la sparation de sources(e.g. [69]), il est possible de sparer n sources dcorrles partir dun
y = Hx +n, with H =
_
_
_
h
11
. . . h
1N
t
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
h
N
r
1
. . . h
N
r
N
t
_
_
Luc Deneire 15
Capacity of the MIMO channel
Hypothesis :
Known channel
r min(N
t
, N
r
) : the rank of the H matrix
lets do the SVD of H : H = UV

H
, where U and V are unitary matrices
and is a matrix with the diagonals are the ordered singular values
[
1
,
2
, ,
r
, 0, ]
Then, we can write H =

r
i =1
i
u
i
v
Dening x = V
x, y = U
y, n = U
w :
y = x + n
Luc Deneire 16
Capacity of the MIMO channel
y = x + n
translates to (gure from Tses book)
293 7.1 Multiplexing capability of deterministic MIMO channels
Figure 7.1 Converting the
MIMO channel into a parallel
channel through the SVD.
x
V
V
*
U
U
*
y
y
Pre-processing Post-processing
Channel
n
min
w
n
min
w
1
+
+
x
~
.
.
.
where w 0 N
0
I
n
r
has the same distribution as w (cf. (A.22) in
Appendix A), and x
2
= x
2
. Thus, the energy is preserved and we have
an equivalent representation as a parallel Gaussian channel:
y
i
=
i
x
i
+ w
i
i =1 2 n
min
(7.9)
The equivalence is summarized in Figure 7.1.
The SVD decomposition can be interpreted as two coordinate transforma-
tions: it says that if the input is expressed in terms of a coordinate system
defined by the columns of V and the output is expressed in terms of a coordi-
nate system defined by the columns of U, then the input/output relationship
is very simple. Equation (7.8) is a representation of the original channel (7.1)
with the input and output expressed in terms of these new coordinates.
We have already seen examples of Gaussian parallel channels in Chapter 5,
when we talked about capacities of time-invariant frequency-selective chan-
nels and about time-varying fading channels with full CSI. The time-invariant
MIMO channel is yet another example. Here, the spatial dimension plays the
same role as the time and frequency dimensions in those other problems. The
capacity is by now familiar:
C =
n
min
i=1
log
1+
P
i

2
i
N
0
bits/s/Hz (7.10)
where P
1
P
n
min
are the waterfilling power allocations:
P
i
=
N
0
2
i
+
(7.11)
with chosen to satisfy the total power constraint

i
P
i
= P. Each
i
corresponds to an eigenmode of the channel (also called an eigenchannel).
Each non-zero eigenchannel can support a data stream; thus, the MIMO
channel can support the spatial multiplexing of multiple streams. Figure 7.2
pictorially depicts the SVD-based architecture for reliable communication.
which in turn translates to the following capacity formula :
C = log
2
_
det
_
I
N
r
+
SNR
N
t
HH
__
bits/s/Hz
Luc Deneire 17
MIMO
Capacity of MIMO systems
38 CHAPITRE 4. PROJET DE RECHERCHE
Dans le cas SIMO (plusieurs antennes au rcepteur), la capacit est donne par :
C = log
2
(1 +SNR
M
R
i=1
|h
i
|
2
) bits/s/Hz (4.2)
On notera que la capacit augmente logarithmiquement avec le nombre dantennes.
Dans le cas MISO (plusieurs antennes lmetteur), on a
C = log
2
(1 +
SNR
M
T
M
T
i=1
|h
i
|
2
) bits/s/Hz (4.3)
o la perte M
T
est due au fait quon transmet une puissance totale xe (en dautres termes, on diminue le
SNR au rcepteur dun facteur M
T
).
Dans le cas MIMO, Foschini donne la capacit par la formule [72] :
C = log
2
det
I
M
R
+
SNR
M
T
HH
bits/s/Hz (4.4)
pour des sources dcorrles et de puissance identique. Cette fois-ci, la capacit augmente linairement avec
m = min{M
T
, M
R
} (au lieu de logarithmiquement dans le cas SIMO). On appelle m le gain de multi-
plexage. La gure 4.1 illustre le gain en capacit de systmes MIMO 2x2 et 4x4. On notera que lon peut
difcilement obtenir un gain de multiplexage suprieur 4 en pratique, (au-del de 4, le produit HH
devient
mal conditionn).
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
SNR/bit
1 TX, 1 RX
2 TX, 2 RX
4 TX, 4 RX
bits/s/Hz
FIG. 4.1 Comparaison des capacits de systmes MIMO et SISO
Luc Deneire 18
Diversity or Spatial Multiplexing ?
A tradeoff
There are two points of view :
Diversity : BEP SNR

d
: diversity of order d
Diversity Gain enhances the Error Probability Performance
Spatial multiplexing : rate R = r log SNR.

Multiplexing Gain enhances capacity LINEARLY
Luc Deneire 19
Diversity or Spatial Multiplexing ?
A tradeoff
There exists a tradeoff between Diversity and Spatial Multiplexing (at high
SNR and slow fading). This tradeoff is determined by the outage probability
of the channel at rate r log SNR. The tradeoff is achievable by proper coding
and decoding. See chapter 9 of Tses book.
396 MIMO III: diversitymultiplexing tradeoff and universal space-time codes
Figure 9.7
Diversitymultiplexing tradeoff,
d
(r) for the i.i.d. Rayleigh

fading channel.
Spatial multiplexing gain r = R / log SNR
D
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

g
a
i
n

d

*
(
r
)

(min{n
t
, n
r
}, 0)
(0, n
t
n
r
)
(r, (n
t
r)(n
r
r))
(2, (n
t
2)(n
r
2))
(1, (n
t
1)(n
r
1))
Figure 9.8 Adding one
transmit and one receive
antenna increases spatial
multiplexing gain by 1 at each
diversity level.
Spatial multiplexing gain r =R / log SNR
D
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y

g
a
i
n

d

*
(
r
)
d
This is because the entire tradeoff curve is shifted by 1 to the right; see
Figure 9.8.
The optimal tradeoff curve is based on the outage probability, so in principle
arbitrarily large block lengths are required to achieve the optimal tradeoff
curve. However, it has been shown that, in fact, space-time codes of block
length l =n
t
+n
r
1 achieve the curve. In Section 9.2.4, we will see a scheme
that achieves the tradeoff curve but requires arbitrarily large block lengths.
Luc Deneire 20
MU-MIMO : MultiUser Diversity
MU-MIMO : Single Antenna Mobiles : Spatial Division Multiplexing Access
MU-MIMO : Splitting the Receiver Antenna Array
Main Idea : Multiple antennas at the mobile is Expensive

Use multiple mobiles with each one antenna (or few antennas)
Simple example : Multiple narrow beams steered at each mobile

Luc Deneire 21
MU-MIMO : Spatial Division Multiplexing Access : Capacity REGION
In the case of N users, there are N capacities to look at simultaneously. The
region enclosed is called the capacity region.
For 2 users :
R
1
< log
_
1 +
P
1
N
o
_
R
2
< log
_
1 +
P
2
N
o
_
R
1
+ R
2
< log
_
1 +
P
1
+P
2
N
o
_
In the SDMA case :
R
1
< log
_
1 +
||h
1
||
2
P
1
N
o
_
R
2
< log
_
1 +
||h
2
||
2
P
2
N
o
_
R
1
+ R
2
< log
_
I
2
+
Hdiag(P
1
,P
2
)H
N
o
_
Luc Deneire 22
MU-MIMO : Spatial Division Multiplexing Access : Capacity REGION
R2
R1
R1+R2
A
B
The exact values at point A and B depend on the structure of the receiver
uses.
When K users are present, the region is a polyhedron ...
Luc Deneire 23
MU-MIMO : Spatial Division Multiplexing Access : MULTIUSER GAIN
Compare the capacity region with pure TDMA (similar results for general
orthogonal MA).
R2
R1
R1+R2
A
B TDMA
Luc Deneire 24
MU-MIMO : Spatial Division Multiplexing Access : Some important results
MMSE-SIC receivers are optimal
High multiuser gain at high SNR
Lots of details skipped (slow/fast fading, RxCSI, TxCSI, ...)
Extension to multiple antennas at the mobile Straightforward (replace

h
i
by H
i
)
Luc Deneire 25
Downlink : the realm of Precoding
MU-MIMO : Downlink transmission
MU-MIMO : Precoding
Major difference with classical MIMO : users do not cooperate

(whereas in classical MIMO, all receiving antennas cooperate).
let H = [h
1
, , h
K
] be the channel between an N
t
antennas Base
Station and K mobiles equipped with 1 antenna.
Suppose h
1
, , h
K
orthogonal (K N
t
)
we transmit x(m) =
K
k=1
x
k
(m)h
The received signal is then ||h

k
||
2
x
k
(m) + n
k
(m)
If the channels are not orthogonal, then transmit with a precoding vector u
k
in the subspace orthogonal to h
i
, i = k.
This is one example of decorrelator precoding .... lots of other things to say
on receivers, choosing u
k
to achieve capacity, ....
Luc Deneire 26
Massive MIMO
Massive MIMO
Simple Uplink Matched Filter Receiver
Suppose y = h
1
x
1
+h
2
x
2
+n (y : received signal at the BS with N antennas).
Suppose h
i
have i.i.d. entries with zero mean and unit variance, h
i
known at
the BS, n complex, zero mean and unit variance normal (hence
E(|h
i
|
2
) = SNR).
Apply a matched lter at the BS to detect User 1 :
1
N
h
H
1
y = x
1
1
N
N
i =1
|h
1i
|
2
. .
useful signal
+x
2
1
N
N
i =1
h
1i
h
2i
. .
interference
+
1
N
N
i =1
h
1i
n
i
. .
noise
Luc Deneire 27
Massive MIMO
Massive MIMO
Interference and noise vanishes
1
N
h
H
1
y = x
1
1
N
N
i =1
|h
1i
|
2
. .
useful signal
+x
2
1
N
N
i =1
h
1i
h
2i
. .
interference
+
1
N
N
i =1
h
1i
n
i
. .
noise
By the central limit theorem :
1
N
N
i =1
h
1i
h
2i
E{h
11
h
21
} = 0, for N
1
N
N
i =1
h
1i
n
i
E{h
11
n
1
} = 0, for N
Hence :
1
N
h
H
1
y x
1
E
_
|h
11
|
2
_
= x
1
Luc Deneire 28
Massive MIMO
Massive MIMO
SINR scales up with the number of BS antennas / SNR can be scaled down with N
SINR
MF
1
=
1
N
h
H
1
h
1
1
N
h
H
1
h
2
||h
1
||
2
+
1
N.SNR
Average signal power : E

_
1
N
h
H
1
h
1
_
= 1
Average interference power : E

_
1
N
h
H
1
h
2
||h
1
||
2
_
=
1
N
Average noise power :

1
N SNR
The matched lter is optimal for large number of antennas !
Luc Deneire 29
Massive MIMO
How much can MMSE do better [Hoydis, JSAC-2013]
The MMSE rate can be computed as :
R
MMSE
1
= E
_
log
2
_
1 +h
H
1
_
h
2
h
H
2
+
1
SNR
I
N
_
1
h
1
__
0 200 400 600 800 1000
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Number of antennas N
R
a
t
e

(
b
i
t
s
/
c
h
a
n
n
e
l

u
s
e
)

MF
MMSE
SNR = 10dB
SNR = 10/N
~3 b/ch.u.
Luc Deneire 30
Massive MIMO in the Downlink
Same Benets than in Uplink
Noise and interference vanish for large N
Hence, Transmit power scaled down by 1/N
Maximum Ratio Transmission optimal
Holds with reduced number of antennas and Regularize zero-forcing

([Hoydis Jsac 2013])
Luc Deneire 31
Channel estimation burden in TDD lighter
Channel knowledge needed at BS for precoding (and coherent

detection)
if FDD : channel training in the downlink + Feedback

As many pilots as antennas Users
in TDD : use channel reciprocity (As many pilots as Users) BUT front
end calibration ([Kouassi, ICC 2013])
in TDD : use Uplink channel training and use the uplink channel
estimation on the downlink
Luc Deneire 32
Classical training based MMSE estimator
Consider a frame of length T and a training subframe of length . The

frame is [p
i
d
i
] where p
i
are pilots and d
i
are (useful) data.
Consider the two user case and use orthogonal pilot sequences (and
white Gaussian noise of unit variance) :
Y = [h
1
h
2
]
_
p
T
1
p
T
2
_
+N
A simple LS estimator is given by the correlation of Y with the

conjugated/normalised pilots :
Y
p
i
||p
i
||
2
= h
i
+

n
i
where n CN(0, ||p
i
||
2
I
N
)
Luc Deneire 33
Classical training based MMSE estimator
Suppose h
i
orthogonal and R
i
E
_
h
i
h
H
i
_
The linear MMSE estimate of the channel can be written as :
h
i
= R
i
_
R
i
+||p
i
||
2
I
N
_
1
Y
p
i
||p
i
||
2
The decomposition h
i
=

h
i
+

h
i
,
with E
_
h
i

h
i
H
_
= R
i
_
R
i
+||p
i
||
2
I
N
_
1
R
i

i
and E
_
h
i

h
i
H
_
= R
i

i
Orthogonality Principle of MMSE estimator : E

_
h
H
i

h
i
_
= 0.
Hence

h
i
CN(0,
i
) and

h
i
CN(0, R
i

i
).
Assumptions when N
Trace(R
i
) = c
i
N, for 0 < c
i
1 (linear energy growth)
liminf
N
1/Nrank(R
i
) > 0 (innite degrees of freedom)
limsup
N
||R
i
|| < (nite energy per degree of freedom)
Luc Deneire 34
Inuence of imperfect CSI [Hassibi / Hochwald, Tr. Inf. Theory 2003]
Data sent during T : y(t ) = h

1
x
1
(t ) +h
2
x
2
(t ) +n(t )
BS projects y(t ) on

h
i
. The achievable rate is :
R
1
= (1 1/)E
_
_
_
log
_
_
1 +
||
h
1
||
4
h
1
(h
2
h
H
2
+ E
_
h
1
h
1
|
h
1
_
+ 1/SNRI
N
)h
1
_
_
_
_
_
For large N
R
1
(11/) log
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
1 +
(1/Ntr
1
)
2
1
N
2
tr(
1
R
2
)
. .
interference
+
1
N
2
tr(
1
(R
1
1
))
. .
ImperfectCSI
+
1
N
2
SNR
tr(
1
)
. .
noise
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
Luc Deneire 35
Imperfect CSI can induce a loss of power efciency
if R
i
= I
N
then
R
1
(1 1/) log
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
1
1
N
..
interference
+
1
N||p
1
||
2
(2 +
1
SNR
)
. .
ImperfectCSI
+
1
NSNR
. .
noise
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
If ||p
1
||
2
N
a
and SNR N
b
with a + b < 1 : liminf
N
R
1
> 0.
If equal pilot and data power (a = b = 1/2) the power must be proportional at
least to
1
N
in contrast to
1
N
for perfect CSI.
Luc Deneire 36
Pilot contamination : due to linear processing
The number of (orthogonal) pilot sequences is limited can be reused

from one cell to the other
Assume two UEs transmit the same pilot sequence :

Y = [h
1
h
2
]
_
p
T
1
p
T
1
_
+N
A simple LS estimator is given by the correlation of Y with the

conjugated/normalised pilots :
Y
p
1
||p
1
||
2
= h
1
+h
2
+

n
1
The linear MMSE estimate of the channel can be written as :
h
1
= R
1
_
R
1
+R
2
+||p
1
||
2
I
N
_
1
Y
p
1
||p
1
||
2
E
_
h
1

h
1
H
_
= R
1
_
R
1
+R
2
+||p
1
||
2
I
N
_
1
R
1
Pilot Contamination : Estimate of h
1
correlated with h
2
Luc Deneire 37
Pilot contamination can limit rate (Marzetta 2011)
As N , R
1
(1 /T) log(1 +
1
), with
1
1
When does pilot contamination become dominating?
0 20 40 60 80 100
200
190
180
170
160
150
140
Number of antennas N
P
o
w
e
r

(
d
B
m
)

Signal
Interference
Imperfect CSI
Noise
Pilot contamination
Powers of dierent parts of the received signal at the BS for R
i
= d
3.6
i
I
N
with
d
1
= 200 m, d
2
= 500 m, and kk
2
= SNR = 121 dB.
Jakob Hoydis (Bell Labs) Massive MIMO and HetNets IMSS13 34 / 96
Power of different parts of the received signal, power exponent of 3.6,
d
1
= 200m, d
2
= 500m
Luc Deneire 38
Pilot contamination can be easily mitigated
Pilot contamination precoding (Marzetta, ISIT 2012), Time-shifted pilots

(pretty much like 3G-WCDMA), ....
Blind techniques
Plan Pilots according to second-order channel statistics .... ([Gesbert,

JSAC 2013]
Luc Deneire 39
Massive MIMO seems to resist to Hardware impairments
Hardware impairments
Transceiver induced impairments
Non-linearities (higher with high power usually)
Phase Noise
IQ imbalance
Quantization noise
Non reciprocity
For Massive MIMO : need cheap, low-power, low-cost transceivers
Resistance to Hardware impairments is VITAL.
Luc Deneire 40
An analysis of resistance to hardware impairments [Bj ornson et al,
Arxiv, 2013]
Uplink channel model
PRINCIPLE : model impairments with Gaussian r.v., with parameters
checked against real hardware
Uplink : y
BS
= h
_
x
UE
+
UE
t
_
+
BS
r
+n
BS
where E
_
|x
UE
|
2
_
: P
UE
, n
BS
CN(0, S); h CN(0, R)
Transmit distortion :
UE
t
CN(0,
UE
t
P
UE
)
Receive distortion :
BS
t
CN(0,
BS
r
P
UE
diag(|h
1
|
2
, , |h
N
|
2
))
Parameters in the range [0, 0.03].
Luc Deneire 41
Channel estimation with hardware impairments
LMMSE estimat based on a single uplink pilot x

UE
= p; |p|
2
= P
UE
h = p
RZ
1
y
BS
where
Z = E
_
y
BS
(y
BS
)
H
_
= P
UE
(1 +
UE
t
)R + P
UE
BS
r
diag(R
11
R
NN
) +S
E
_
h
H
_
= R C
E
_
h
H
_
= C
C = R P
UE
RZ
1
R
Luc Deneire 42
Channel estimation with hardware imperfections : simple case
If R = S = I
N
C =
_
1
1
1 +
UE
t
+
BS
r
+ 1/P
UE
_
I
N
,
Which tends to .... when P
UE
goes to innity
Hence, perfect channel estimation is not possible for innite pilot power.
Can be enhanced by increasing the number of pilots ...
Luc Deneire 43
Numerical results
Channel estimation with hardware imperfections: Numerical results
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
10
4
10
3
10
2
10
1
10
0
Average SNR [dB]
R
e
l
a
t
i
v
e
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
i
o
n
E
r
r
o
r
p
e
r
A
n
t
e
n
n
a
LMMSE Estimator
Error Floors
UE
=
BS
=015
2
UE
=
BS
=01
2
UE
=
BS
=005
2
UE
=
BS
=0
Relative estimation error
tr C
tr R
for N = 50 over SNR = p
UE tr R
tr S
. The matrix R is generated
by the exponential model [22] with correlation coecient = 0.7 and S = I
N
.
Luc Deneire 44
Numerical results
Channel estimation with hardware imperfections: Numerical results
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
10
10
3
10
2
10
1
10
0
Pilot Length (B)
R
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

E
s
t
i
m
a
t
i
o
n

E
r
r
o
r

p
e
r

A
n
t
e
n
n
a

Fully Correlated Distortion Noise
Uncorrelated Distortion Noise
deal Hardware
5 dB
30 dB
Relative estimation error
tr C
tr R
over the pilot length B for for N = 50 and
UE
t
=
BS
r
= 0.05
2
.
Luc Deneire 45
Numerical results : impact of BS vanishes as N grows large
11
transceiver hardware that limits the DL and UL capacities as
N . Thus, the detrimental effect of hardware impairments
at the BS vanishes completely, or almost completely, when the
number of BS antennas grows large. This is, simply speaking,
since the BSs distortion noises are spread in arbitrary direc-
tions in the N-dimensional vector space while the increased
spatial resolution of the array enables very exact transmit
beamforming and receive combining for the useful signal. This
is a very promising result since large arrays are more prone
to impairments, due to implementation limitations and the will
to use antenna elements of lower quality (to avoid having
deployment costs that increase linearly with N). In contrast,
the UEs distortion noises are non-vanishing since they behave
as interferers with the same effective channels as the useful
signals.
Corollaries 4 and 5 assumed that the inter-user interfer-
ence satisfy E{I
UE
} O(N
n
) and E{kQk
2
} O(N
n
),
respectively, for some n < 1. These conditions imply that the
interference terms only vanish asymptotically if the scaling
with N is slower than linear. This is satised by regular
interference (which has constant variance, n = 0), but there is
a special type of pilot contaminated interference in multi-cell
systems that scales linearly with N. This adds an additional
non-vanishing term to the denominators of (42) and (44). We
detail this scenario in Section VI.
Finally, we stress that the DL and UL capacity bounds
in Corollaries 2 and 3, respectively, have a very similar
structure. The main difference is that the UL is only affected
by UL hardware impairments (i.e.,
UE
t
,
BS
r
), while the DL
is affected by both DL and UL hardware impairments (i.e., all
-parameters) due to the reverse-link channel estimation.
C. Numerical Illustrations
Next, we illustrate the lower and upper bounds on the
capacity that were derived earlier in this section. We consider
a scenario without interference, Q = S = 0 and I
UE
= 0, and
dene the average SNRs as p
UE
tr(R)
N
2
BS
and p
BS
tr(R)
N
2
UE
in the UL
and DL, respectively. The SNRs are xed at 20 dB, while we
vary the number of antennas N and the levels of impairments.
We assume that the transmitter and receiver hardware of each
device are of the same quality:
BS
,
BS
t
=
BS
r
at the BS
and
UE
,
UE
t
=
UE
r
at the UE.
11
Furthermore, we assume
T
DL
data
T
coher
=
T
UL
data
T
coher
= 0.45. These assumptions make the bounds
for the DL and UL capacities become identical, thus we can
simulate the DL and UL simultaneously.
Fig. 6 considers a spatially uncorrelated scenario with
R = I for different levels of impairments:
UE
t
=
BS
r

{0, 0.05
2
, 0.15
2
}. The meaning of these parameter values was
discussed in Remark 1. The capacity with ideal hardware
grows without bound as N , while the lower and upper
bounds converge to nite limits under transceiver hardware
impairments. Recall that these bounds hold under any CSI
11
The transmitter and receiver hardware both involve converters, mixers,
lters, and oscillators; see [30, Fig. 1] for a typical transceiver model. The
main difference is the type of ampliers, thus the assumption of identical
levels of impairments makes sense when the non-linearities of the ampliers
at the transmitter are not the dominating source of distortion noise.
0 100 200 300 400 500
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Number of Base Station Antennas (N)
S
p
e
c
t
r
a
l

E
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y

[
b
i
t
s
/
c
h
a
n
n
e
l

u
s
e
]

Capacity: Upper Bounds
Capacity: Lower Bounds
Asymptotic Limits (Upper & Lower)
BS
=
UE
= 0.15
2
BS
=
UE
= 0.05
2
BS
=
UE
= 0
Fig. 6. Lower and upper bounds on the capacity. Hardware impairments
have a fundamental impact on the asymptotic behavior as N grows large.
conditions at the BS and UE; the lower bounds represent
no CSI in the decoding step and the upper bounds represent
perfect CSI. Although the gap between these extremes is large
for ideal hardware, the difference is remarkably small under
non-ideal hardware due to the nite capacity limit (caused by
distortion noise) and the channel hardening that makes random
inner product such as h
H
v become increasingly deterministic
as N grows large. Since a main difference between the lower
and upper bounds is the quality of the CSI, the small difference
shows that the estimation errors have only a minor impact on
the capacity; hence, the estimation error oors described in
Section III has no dominating impact in the large-N regime.
The asymptotic capacity limits in Fig. 6 are characterized
by the level of impairments, thus the hardware quality has a
fundamental impact on the achievable spectral efciency. The
majority of the multi-antenna gain is achieved at relatively low
N; in particular, only minor improvements can be achieved
by having more than N = 100 antennas. Larger numbers
are, however, useful for inter-user interference suppression and
multiplexing; see Section VI.
Fig. 7 considers the same scenario as in Fig. 6 but with
a xed level of impairments
UE
= 0.05
2
at the UE and
different values at the BS. As expected from the analysis, the
lower and upper capacity bounds increase with
BS
, but the
difference is only visible at small N since the curves converge
to virtually the same value as N . This validates that the
impact of impairments at the BS vanishes as N grows large.
Finally, we consider the capacity behavior for different
channel covariance models, namely the four propagation
scenarios described in Section III-B. The lower and upper
capacity bounds are shown in Fig. 8 for
BS
=
UE
= 0.05.
The upper bound is identical for all the models, since it
only utilizes the diagonal elements of R. However, there are
clear differences between the lower bounds. The spatially
uncorrelated covariance model provides the highest perfor-
mance, while the strongly spatially correlated one-ring model
from [42] with 10 degrees angular spread gives the lowest
performance. This stands in contrast to Section III-B, where
the highly correlated channels gave the lowest estimation er-
rors. However, the differences between the channel covariance
models vanish asymptotically as N .
Luc Deneire 46
Hardware impairments : conclusions
Perfect channel estimation impossible (of course !)
CAN still achieve huge array gain
Hardware quality of UE and BS equaly important (which is good news :

BS does not need to have excellent hardware)
Inter-user interference and Pilot Contamination drowns in distorion noise.

Luc Deneire 47
Massive MIMO and FDD : classical beamforming
Problem in FDD : Feedback and coherence block-length
Massive MIMO and FDD : SDMA and MU precoding
Counteract the channel coherence time
([Caire 2010]) Full CSI capacity at high SNR if MSE(
h h)
1
SNR

Channel estimation is the issue !
In FDD : downlink training + CSI Feedback
Quantity limited by coherence time of the channel LIMITS the useful

capacity
Joint Spatial Division and Multiplexing ([Nam et al 2012])
Group users with similar (transmit) correlation matrix
Produce small inter-group interference (by user location geometry

knowledge)
rst stage : classical beamforming
second stage : MU-precoding in the reduced space

Luc Deneire 48
System Model
Downlink Model
Downlink model, single-cell FDD, N BS antennas, K Mobiles with 1

antenna.
Kronecker channel model : H = R

1
2
R
WR
1
2
T
(W i.i.d. CN(0, 1))
At Mobiles : R
R
= I
R R
T
; r = rankR (rank as number of non negligible eigenvalues)
Downlink channel KL decomposed : h = U

1
2
w ;
where w C
r 1
CN(0, I), is a r r diagonal and U C
Nr
Luc Deneire 49
System Model
Downlink Model
For a user at distance s from the BS and azimuth angle , with

k() = 2/(cos , sin )
T
, for BS antennas m, p
[R]
m,p
=
1
2
_

e
j k
T
(+)(u
m
u
p
)d
q
D
D
r
Scattering ring around
the mobile
Luc Deneire 50
System Model
H : N K channel (K user channels stacked)
y = H
H
Vd +n = H
H
x +n (V is the N s precoding matrix,
= E
_
Vdd
H
V
H
_
is the s-rank input covariance.
Luc Deneire 51
System Model
Principle of JSDM : divide ut impera
Avoid the large CSI feedback (N K channel matrix) by grouping similar

AoA users (similar Correlation Matrix) in G groups with covariance
R
g
= U
g
g
U
H
g
.
= K/G mobiles, N
= N/G BS antennas, s
= s/G streams per

group, note g
k
= (g 1)K
+ k user k in group G.
the global channel H = [H

1
, , H
G
], where
H
g
= [h
g1
, , h
gK
], h
gk
= U
g
1/2
g
w
gk
pre-beamforming : B C
Nb
, only depending on second order
statistics {U
g
,
g
} and b such that b
= b/G s
After pre-beamforming : rewrite received signal :

y = H
H
Pd +n where H
H
= [H
H
i
B
j
]
(i ,j )
Precoding P determined as function of H Joint Group Processing

(expensive ...)
Luc Deneire 52
System Model
Start to gain complexity on precoding matrix
Feed back only diagonal blocks (H

g
= B
H
g
H
g
)Per Group Processing
Hence y
g
= H
H
g
B
g
P
g
d
g
+
=g
H
H
g
B
g
P
g
d
g
+n
g
Design pre-beamforming such that H

H
g
B
H
g
0g
= g.
Each group acts as a virtual sector, with, ideally, no interference

between virtual sectors.
Luc Deneire 53
System Model
Slowly varying Correlation matrix in Time and Frequency
R
g
varies slowly (much more slowly than H
g
)
For WSSUS (Wide-sense stationary uncorrelated scattering fading

model) R
g
is independent of Frequency all OFDM subcarriers can be
used to estimate R
g
.
U
g
can be tracked by subspace tracking algos.
Luc Deneire 54
Capacity is optimal with reduced CSI
Under ideal pre-beamforming (B

g
= U
g
, r = r
g
, g and U = [U
1
, U
G
]
a N rG tall unitary matrix :
y
g
= H
H
g
B
g
P
g
d
g
+n
g
= W
H
g
1/2
g
P
g
d
g
+n
g
where W
g
is a r K
i.i.d. matrix with elements r.v. CN(0, 1).
the sum capacity of the set of decoupled channels is equal to

the sum capacity of the full MU-MIMO channel
Also achieves the capacity region ....

Luc Deneire 55
Performing the Block Diagonalisation
Global pre-beamforming : B = [B
1
, B
G
] (N b)
Block Diagonalisation : U
H
g
B
g
= 0
assuming BD is feasible for r and s
(otherwise, there are solutions ...),

take
g
= [U
1
, , U
g1
, U
g+1
, U
G
] of rank r (G 1)
its SVD being
g
= [E
1
g
, E
0
g
]S
g
F
H
G
,
where E
0
g
is the null space of
g
(orthogonal to all other groups).
we project the channel (h

g
k
= U
g
1/2
g
w
g
k
) on this orthogonal space :
h
g
k
= (E
0
g
)
H
U
g
1/2
g
w
g
k
h
g
k
=

U
g
1/2
g
w
g
k
with

U
b
g
containing the b
dominant eigenvectors
The bemaformer is then

B
g
= E
0
g

U
b
g
Luc Deneire 56
Simulation Results (Caire)
M = 100, G = 6 user groups, Rank(R
g
) = 21, effective rank r
g
= 11.
We serve S
= 5 users per group with b
= 10, r
= 6 and r
= 12.
For r
g
= 12: 150 bit/s/Hz at SNR = 18 dB: 5 bit/s/Hz per user, for 30 users
served simultaneously on the same time-frequency slot.
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
SNR (in dBs)
S
u
m

R
a
t
e

Capacity
ZFBF, JGP
RZFBF, JGP
ZFBF, PGP
RZFBF, PGP
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
SNR (in dBs)
S
u
m

R
a
t
e

Capacity
ZFBF, JGP
RZFBF, JGP
ZFBF, PGP
RZFBF, PGP
Luc Deneire 57
Order of magnitude gain in training
With Full CSI : 100 30 channel matrix : 3000 complex per block 100
100 Unitary pilot matrix for downlink channel estimation
JSDM with Per Group Processing : 6 groups, 10 streams, 5 users per

group : 300 complex per block, 10 10 pilots for downlink.
Computation : 6 matrix inversions 5 5 vs. 1 matrix inversion 30 30

Luc Deneire 58
References
References I
A. Adhikary, J. Nam, J. Y. Ahn, and G. Caire.
Joint spatial division and multiplexing.
CoRR, abs/1209.1402, 2012.
O. Alrabadi, E. Tsakalaki, H. Huang, and G. Pedersen.
Beamforming via large and dense antenna arrays above a clutter.
Selected Areas in Communications, IEEE Journal on, 31(2):314325,
2013.
X. Artiga, B. Devillers, and J. Perruisseau-Carrier.
Mutual coupling effects in multi-user massive mimo base stations.
In Antennas and Propagation Society International Symposium
(APSURSI), 2012 IEEE, pages 12, 2012.
C. Artigue and P. Loubaton.
On the precoder design of at fading mimo systems equipped with
mmse receivers: A large-system approach.
Information Theory, IEEE Transactions on, 57(7):41384155, 2011.
Luc Deneire 59
References
References II
A. Chockalingam.
Low-complexity algorithms for large-mimo detection.
In Communications, Control and Signal Processing (ISCCSP), 2010 4th
International Symposium on, pages 16, 2010.
N. Costa and S. Haykin.
A novel wideband mimo channel model and experimental validation.
Antennas and Propagation, IEEE Transactions on, 56(2):550562, 2008.
L. Deneire, B. Gyselinckx, and M. Engels.
Training sequence vs. cyclic prex : a new look on single carrier
communication.
IEEE Communication Letters, 5(7):292294, July 2001.
A. Dimakis, S. Kar, J. M. F. Moura, M. Rabbat, and A. Scaglione.
Gossip algorithms for distributed signal processing.
Proceedings of the IEEE, 98(11):18471864, 2010.
Luc Deneire 60
References
References III
X. Gao, O. Edfors, F. Rusek, and F. Tufvesson.
Linear pre-coding performance in measured very-large mimo channels.
In Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC Fall), 2011 IEEE, pages 15,
2011.
X. Gao, F. Tufvesson, O. Edfors, and F. Rusek.
Measured propagation characteristics for very-large mimo at 2.6 ghz.
In Signals, Systems and Computers (ASILOMAR), 2012 Conference
Record of the Forty Sixth Asilomar Conference on, pages 295299,
2012.
M. Hanif, P. Smith, D. Taylor, and P. Martin.
Mimo cognitive radios with antenna selection.
Wireless Communications, IEEE Transactions on, 10(11):36883699,
2011.
M. Hesse, J. Lebrun, and L. Deneire.
L2 Orthogonal ST Code Design for CPM.
IEEE Transactions on Communications, 59(11):31583166, November
2011.
Luc Deneire 61
References
References IV
M. Hesse, M. Mailand, H. Jentschel, L. Deneire, and J. Lebrun.
Semi-Blind Cancellation of IQ-Imbalances.
In Proc. IEEE International Conference on Communications, (ICC08),
pages 50235027, Beijing, China, 2008.
http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00272886/en/.
J. Hoydis, S. ten Brink, and M. Debbah.
Comparison of linear precoding schemes for downlink massive mimo.
In Communications (ICC), 2012 IEEE International Conference on,
pages 21352139, 2012.
H. Huh, G. Caire, H. Papadopoulos, and S. Ramprashad.
Achieving massive mimo spectral efciency with a not-so-large number
of antennas.
Wireless Communications, IEEE Transactions on, 11(9):32263239,
2012.
Luc Deneire 62
References
References V
J. Kermoal, L. Schumacher, K. Pedersen, P. Mogensen, and
F. Frederiksen.
A stochastic mimo radio channel model with experimental validation.
2002.
C. Knievel, M. Noemm, and P. Hoeher.
Low-complexity receiver for large-mimo space-time coded systems.
In Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC Fall), 2011 IEEE, pages 15,
2011.
B. Kouassi, L. Deneire, B. Zayen, R. Knopp, F. Kaltenberger, F. Negro,
D. Slock, and I. Ghaur.
Design and implementation of spatial interweave lte-tdd cognitive radio
communication on an experimental platform.
Wireless Communications, IEEE, 20(2):6067, 2013.
Luc Deneire 63
References
References VI
R. Krishnan, M. Khanzadi, L. Svensson, T. Eriksson, and T. Svensson.
Variational bayesian framework for receiver design in the presence of
phase noise in mimo systems.
In Wireless Communications and Networking Conference (WCNC), 2012
IEEE, pages 347352, 2012.
R. Kudo, S. M. D. Armour, J. McGeehan, and M. Mizoguchi.
Csi estimation method based on random beamforming for massive
number of transmit antenna systems.
In Wireless Communication Systems (ISWCS), 2012 International
Symposium on, pages 716720, 2012.
P.-H. Kuo, H. Kung, and P.-A. Ting.
Compressive sensing based channel feedback protocols for
spatially-correlated massive antenna arrays.
In Wireless Communications and Networking Conference (WCNC), 2012
IEEE, pages 492497, 2012.
Luc Deneire 64
References
References VII
S. K. Mohammed and E. G. Larsson.
Per-antenna constant envelope precoding for large multi-user mimo
systems.
CoRR, abs/1201.1634, 2012.
R. R. M uller, M. Vehkaper a, and L. Cottatellucci.
Blind pilot decontamination.
In WSA 2013, 17th International ITG Workshop on Smart Antennas,
13-14 March 2013, Stuttgart, ALLEMAGNE, 03 2013.
J. Nam, J.-Y. Ahn, A. Adhikary, and G. Caire.
Joint spatial division and multiplexing: Realizing massive mimo gains
with limited channel state information.
In Information Sciences and Systems (CISS), 2012 46th Annual
Conference on, pages 16, 2012.
A. Nasir, H. Mehrpouyan, R. Schober, and Y. Hua.
Phase noise in mimo systems: Bayesian cramer rao bounds and
soft-input estimation.
Signal Processing, IEEE Transactions on, 61(10):26752692, 2013.
Luc Deneire 65
References
References VIII
H. Q. Ngo and E. Larsson.
Evd-based channel estimation in multicell multiuser mimo systems with
very large antenna arrays.
In Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), 2012 IEEE
International Conference on, pages 32493252, 2012.
H. Q. Ngo, E. G. Larsson, and T. L. Marzetta.
Energy and spectral efciency of very large multiuser mimo systems.
Communications, IEEE Transactions on, 61(4):14361449, 2013.
S. Payami and F. Tufvesson.
Channel measurements and analysis for very large array systems at 2.6
ghz.
In Antennas and Propagation (EUCAP), 2012 6th European Conference
on, pages 433437, 2012.
F. Rusek, D. Persson, B. K. Lau, E. Larsson, T. Marzetta, O. Edfors, and
F. Tufvesson.
Scaling up mimo: Opportunities and challenges with very large arrays.
Signal Processing Magazine, IEEE, 30(1):4060, 2013.
Luc Deneire 66
References
References IX
C. Shepard, H. Yu, N. Anand, E. Li, T. Marzetta, R. Yang, and L. Zhong.
Argos: practical many-antenna base stations.
In Proceedings of the 18th annual international conference on Mobile
computing and networking, Mobicom 12, pages 5364, New York, NY,
USA, 2012. ACM.
M. Sorensen, P. Comon, S. Icart, and L. Deneire.
PARAFAC2 receivers for orthogonal space-time block codes.
In International Conference on Communications, (ICC09), 2009.
5 pages, hal-00435902.
S. Wu and Y. Bar-Ness.
A phase noise suppression algorithm for ofdm-based wlans.
Communications Letters, IEEE, 6(12):535537, 2002.
H. Yin, D. Gesbert, M. Filippou, and Y. Liu.
A coordinated approach to channel estimation in large-scale
multiple-antenna systems.
2013.
Luc Deneire 67

Mmimo Spring School Luc Deneire

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Mmimo Spring School Luc Deneire

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Massive MIMO

low cost and high energy efciency

First element : Diversity enhances (some) spectral / (mostly) power

Second element : MIMO enhances (mostly) spectral efciency

Third element : MultiUser MIMO enhances (mostly) power efciency

Fourth element : Massive MIMO enhances (mostly) power efciency

Last element : low cost thanks to resistance to hardware impairments

Another last element : easy processing with classical beamforming

Flat Fading channel

x is the input signal (here symbols)

||h|| is a Rayleigh Fading random variable

The phase of h is a uniform r.v. on [0, ]

is a zero-mean Gaussian Noise

if y = x + where is zero mean Gaussian with variance N

if y = h.x + , where h is a Rayleigh r.v. :

if >> 1 then BEP .5(1 (1

leading to BEP = 0.5 erfc||h||SNR.

Beam steering : change the phase to create constructive interference

Hypothesis : Low angular dispertion, small separation between

Fixed matched Spatial Filter

Based on Direction of Arrival

Need for DOA pursuit

Some simple devices exist (Buttler Matrix)

A lot of litterature (Beamforming : change phase and amplitude : you can

lets do the SVD of H : H = UV

Then, we can write H =

Diversity : BEP SNR

Spatial multiplexing : rate R = r log SNR.

(r) for the i.i.d. Rayleigh

Main Idea : Multiple antennas at the mobile is Expensive

Simple example : Multiple narrow beams steered at each mobile

MMSE-SIC receivers are optimal

High multiuser gain at high SNR

Lots of details skipped (slow/fast fading, RxCSI, TxCSI, ...)

Extension to multiple antennas at the mobile Straightforward (replace

Major difference with classical MIMO : users do not cooperate

The received signal is then ||h

Average signal power : E

Average interference power : E

Average noise power :

Noise and interference vanish for large N

Hence, Transmit power scaled down by 1/N

Maximum Ratio Transmission optimal

Holds with reduced number of antennas and Regularize zero-forcing

Channel knowledge needed at BS for precoding (and coherent

if FDD : channel training in the downlink + Feedback

Consider a frame of length T and a training subframe of length . The

A simple LS estimator is given by the correlation of Y with the

The linear MMSE estimate of the channel can be written as :

Orthogonality Principle of MMSE estimator : E

Data sent during T : y(t ) = h

The number of (orthogonal) pilot sequences is limited can be reused

Assume two UEs transmit the same pilot sequence :

A simple LS estimator is given by the correlation of Y with the

The linear MMSE estimate of the channel can be written as :

Pilot contamination precoding (Marzetta, ISIT 2012), Time-shifted pilots

Plan Pilots according to second-order channel statistics .... ([Gesbert,

Non-linearities (higher with high power usually)

LMMSE estimat based on a single uplink pilot x

Perfect channel estimation impossible (of course !)

CAN still achieve huge array gain

Hardware quality of UE and BS equaly important (which is good news :

Inter-user interference and Pilot Contamination drowns in distorion noise.