Investigation on Interference Mitigation in

Multicell MU-MIMO
S.B.M.Priya

P.Kumar

Department of ECE
JJ College of Engineering and Technology
Trichy, India
sbmpriya@gmail.com

Department of ECE
K.S. Rangasamy College of Technology
Tiruchengode, India
kumar_ksrct@yahoo.co.in

AbstractThe demand in wireless spectrum is increased more

in this 21st century. The next generation wireless networks are
expected to provide multimedia services with a high QoS. The
MIMO plays a key role in achieving higher spectral efficiency
and preserving the reliability of the system. But in a realistic
environment sharing of resources and frequency by multiple
users will lead to interferences which may diminish the
advantages of the system. So interference mitigation plays a
major role in this context, especially for the cellular network with
frequency reuse one. In this paper we focus on various system
affecting interferences and the mitigating methods in MUMIMO. It also addresses the intra cell mitigation methods like
beamforming; precoding and the inter cell mitigation methods
like Co-MIMO and interference alignment.
Keywords beamforming; co-channel interference; COMIMO;
interference;
interference
alignment;
intra-cell
interference; MIMO; MU-MIMO; precoding.

I.

INTRODUCTION

The demand in wireless spectrum usage is increased more

than ever before. The broadband enabled portables such as
laptops or tablets and mobile phones increase the growth of
mobile data traffic as shown in [1]. As per the recent forecast
by Cisco, global mobile data traffic reached 885 petabytes per
month at the end of 2012, up from 520 petabytes per month at
the end of 2011. And Mobile data traffic will grow at a
compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 66 percent from
2012 to 2017, reaching 11.2 extra bytes per month by 2017.
Regarding the multimedia services, mobile video traffic was 51
percent of traffic by the end of 2012 and it is expected that twothirds of the world's mobile data traffic will be video by 2017
[2]. This increase in number of users as well as multimedia
services it is necessary to move into advanced technology
compared to 3G.
In recent years the evolution of mobile communication is
handled mainly by 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP)
[3]. 3GPP is a consortium, or corporation, of standardization
bodies for the promotion of high speed mobile
communications. 3GPP defines the standards for Long Term
Evolution (LTE) [4] and recently on LTE-Advanced [5-6],
which includes all work from 3GPP Release 10 onwards. LTE
Advanced - LTE Release10 is set to provide higher data rates
in a cost efficient way and at the same time to fulfill the
requirements set by ITU for IMT Advanced or 4G. As per the
4G definition by International Telecommunications Union

c
978-1-4673-6126-2/13/$31.00 2013
IEEE

(ITU), it is targeting data rate of 1Gbps for low mobile services

and 100Mbps for high mobile services.
In the next years, one of the key technologies that will lead
to broadband wireless communication is Multiple Input
Multiple Output (MIMO) as mentioned in LTE Release 8/9.
The LTE design uses a pre-coding matrix (PM) codebook to
extend Single Input Single Output (SISO) transmission to
MIMO transmission. The MIMO uses multiple antennas at
both the transmitter and receiver end to improve performance
of wireless communication [7-9]. It is one of several forms of
smart antenna technology. It has attracted attention in wireless
communications; because it offers significant increases in
spectral efficiency and reliability without additional bandwidth
or transmit power. This is achieved by means of spatial
diversity (through space time codes) and spatial multiplexing
[10-11]. In MIMO systems, the extra spatial degrees of
freedom are brought by the use of multiple antennas at
transmitter and receiver end
Further development in LTE leads to LTE-Advanced which
conforming the requirements of IMT- Advanced systems. One
of the key enabling features to meet IMT-Advanced downlink
performance requirements is multi-user MIMO (MU-MIMO),
where a transmitter serves multiple users simultaneously on the
same frequency resource, primarily relying on spatial
separation. In general, multi-user MIMO is beneficial for
improving average user spectral efficiency.
The impact of MIMO on multi user communication is more
due to the progress in multiuser information theory [12]. In
multiuser MIMO the spatial degree of freedom offered by the
multiple antennas exploited by scheduling multiple users to
simultaneously share the channel for channel capacity
enhancement. MU-MIMO protocol needs extra hardware cost
(antennas and filters) but doesnt require any bandwidth
expansion unlike other multiple access techniques. This entails
a shift from single user communication to multiuser
communications. But to attain the benefits of MU-MIMO
unfortunately it is necessary to overcome the interference (inter
user and intra user) occur in the systems.
The organization of the paper is follows. This paper aims at
giving detail insight into MU-MIMO systems fundamental
concept and techniques to mitigate interferences. A brief
overview of key features and challenges in SU-MIMO and
MU-MIMO are discussed in section II. The section III focuses
on the interference in MU-MIMO. It also detail the interference
mitigation schemes to achieve high spectral efficiency in

244

wireless band limited channel. Finally we conclude with the

section IV.
II.

MU-MIMO

A. MIMO
MIMO is a method of transmitting multiple data streams on
multiple transmitters to multiple receivers through a single
channel for a single user. A MIMO system typically consists of
m transmit and n receive antennas as shown in Fig.1. By using
the same channel, every antenna receives not only the direct
components intended for it, but also the indirect components
intended for the other antennas. The direct connection from
antenna 1 to 1 is specified with h11, etc., while the indirect
connection from antenna 1 to 2 is identified as cross
component h21, etc.

Spatial Diversity : It transmit different replicas of the

transmitted signal to the receiver [13]. If they fade
independently, it is less probable to have all copies of
the transmitted signal in deep fade simultaneously.
Diversity is one of the ways to combat this multipath
fading. It can be implemented in 3 different ways
namely time diversity, frequency diversity and space
diversity. In these the later one is preferably used in
MIMO. Multiple antennas deployed in transmitter and
receiver side helps to provide space diversity. It is
further classified as transmit and Receive diversity.
Trasmit diversity is achieved by Alamoutis Space
Time Code [14].
Shannon capacity of the MIMO systems is given by,

C = log[det( INR +

HH H )]

(4)

Where NT, NR is the number of transmitter and receiver

antennas. is the signal to interference noise ratio (SINR). H is
the NR x NT channel matrix. INR is the NR x NR identity matrix.
B. MU-MIMO
We have gone through point to point SU-MIMO which
increases spectral efficiency and reliability of the system. To
achieve the vision of 4G systems, (100Mbps for high mobile
users, 1Gbps for low mobile users) we require a high efficient
utilization of spectrum. MU-MIMO is expected to play a key
role in the above context. It consists of multiple users at the
transmitter and receiver side as shown in Fig. 2.

Fig. 1. MIMO (3 Tx * 3 Rx)

The transmission matrix is given by,

h11
= h21
h
31

h12
h 22
h32

Single Cell

h13

h23
h33

Multi Cell

(1)

The dimension of H is given by n x m. The output of the

system y for an input x with additive noise n is given by,
y = Hx + n
(2)
The major techniques employed in MIMO are precoding,
spatial multiplexing and spatial diversity coding.
Precoding : It is a multilayer beamforming technique.
The beamforming helps to increase the gain of the
system by constructive addition of signals where as the
multipath fading reduces. But in MIMO, the receiver
has multiple antennas so transmit beamforming cannot
simultaneously maximize the signal level at all of the
receive antenna and precoding is used. It is ellaborately
explained in section III.
Spatial Multiplexing : It transmit multiple independent,
separately encoded data signals (streams) from each of
the multiple transmit antennas. Let us consider a
system with Nt x Nr antennas. Then the maximum
spatial multiplexing order is given as,

Ns = min( Nt , Nr )
(3)
Where Ns is the number of parallel streams that can be
transmitted. It helps in increasing the spectral efficiency
of the system.

Transmitter
Receiver
Fig. 2. MU-MIMO

In multiuser communications, multiple users can

simultaneously share the same time and frequency interval.
This is known as space division multiple access (SDMA) and
can be implemented in a cellular system or a wireless local area
network (WLAN). Multiuser communication is of significant
value as it provides huge capacity gains over single-user
communication. There are two main types of multiuser MIMO
channels the multiple access channel (MAC) and the broadcast
channel (BC). In MAC (uplink) multiple users transmit
simultaneously to a single base station (BS) while in and BC
(downlink) BS transmits to multiple users [12]. The uplink

2013 International Conference on Green Computing, Communication and Conservation of Energy (ICGCE)

245

challenge is addressed by array processing and multi user

detection techniques in order to separate signals from multiple
users. But in downlink since the receiver antenna is distributed
along multiple users unlike SU-MIMO. So the decoding should
be coordinated with every user to separate their individual
symbol. This creates a challenge in system design. A common
method adopted for this problem is called precoding. It requires
accurate channel state information at transmitter (CSIT) unlike
SU-MIMO. The details of MU-MIMO is discussed by various
authors in their research work [13-14]
III.

Beamforming or spatial filtering is a signal processing

technique used to control the directionality of transmission or
reception of an antenna array. This is achieved by changing
the amplitude and phase of an array so that signals at
particular angle experience constructive interference and at
other angle experience destructive interference as shown in
Fig. 3.

COMBATING WITH INTERFERENCE

Interference is caused when several sender-receiver pairs

share a common channel so that transmission of information
from one sender to its corresponding receiver interferes with
communications between the other pairs [18]. Combating
interference in wireless communication is one of the most
outstanding challenges in achieving high spectral efficiency.
As we know spectral-efficiency is an important feature in
wireless communication. Making it true, the generations of
wireless communication systems are usually classified by the
achievable spectral-efficiency of the corresponding
technology. For example the IMT- Advanced 4th generation
(4G) systems target to achieve 1 Gbps for downlink (DL) and
500 Mbps for uplink (UL) spectral-efficiencies [19]. It is a
major advancement from current 3G - LTE Release 8 [20]
system, which aimed at 300 Mps for DL and 75 Mbps for UL
using SU-MIMO with OFDM. In LTE the DL rate is very low
which is insufficient for real time data transfer. So it is
necessary to increase DL rate as specified in LTE Advanced.
As from the information theory [21], the deciding factor
spectral efficiency depends on signal to interference noise
ratio (SINR) at the receiver. SINR is defines as ratio of signal
power at the receiver (P) to Interference Noise Power (I+N).

SINR =

P
I+N

(4)

I is the interference power from other interfering sources

and N is the variance of additive white Gaussian noises.
The spectral efficiency decreases as SINR decreases. The
decrease in SINR is mainly due to two scenarios i) noise
limited scenario and ii) interference limited scenario.
In the noise-limited scenario, the factor I+N are mainly
governed by the noise (N). Therefore, a natural solution to
boost the SINR is to boost the transmission power thereby the
received signal power (P) also increases. The beamforming
and relay techniques could be used for the same.
On the other hand, in the interference-limited scenario, we
have N << I, and I most probably nearer to the received signal
power. In this case increasing the transmission power may not
be a valuable solution. Because the power boosting at the
transmitter may increase P but it cause severe inter-cell
interference to other mobile stations and hence reduce SINR.
This interference limited scenario is the most dominant factor
in mobile cellular network.
So interference mitigation becomes a hot topic in evolution
of wireless communication. In this paper we investigate
interference mitigation schemes for both inter-cell interference
and intra-cell interference in MU-MIMO.

246

A. Beamforming

Fig. 3. Adaptive Beamforming antenna system

It is possible by appropriately weighting the magnitude

and phase of individual signal strength of antenna. It is known
as transmit beamforming. At the receiver antenna desired
signal is designed to arrive at an angle of direction of arrival
(DoA) simultaneously the interfering signal is made to be null.
It is named as receive beamforming. But an adaptive array
beamforming has infinite number of pattern and it can be
adjusted to the desired pattern for a moving receiver.
Beamforming is more useful for larger number of transmit
antenna [22].
In DoA method, the weighting vector is adapted as per the
position of user equipment (UE). The location of UE could be
found using the algorithms such as MUSIC [23] or ESPRIT
[24]. A uniform linear array with /2 array spacing is typically
used. But the /2 array spacing and least probability of
dominant direction in DoA lead us into new method for
weighting vector prediction. The UE-specific reference signals
(RS) is used for channel estimation. The data and the RS are
transmitted using the same antenna weighting factor. Since in
TD-LTE system, both the uplink and downlink uses same
frequency, uplink RS can be used to calculate the weighting
factor for downlink beamforming. It is a one layer
beamforming method defined in LTE Release 8, named as
transmission mode (TM7) [25]. But in LTE Release 9 dual
layer beamforming is defined in TM8. This allows the BS to
weight two layers individually at the antennas so that
beamforming can be combined with spatial multiplexing for
one or more UEs.
B. Precoding
The precoding [26] is a generalized beamforming structure
in order to improve throughput of MU-MIMO system. The
interferences are the significant obstacle in achieving high
speed reliable communication over band limited channels. In
previous communication system the equalizers are proven to
be the effective structure in mitigating interference. But it
normally propagates the error and makes the receiver as a

2013 International Conference on Green Computing, Communication and Conservation of Energy (ICGCE)

complex structure. In wireless communication, the receiver

equipment is normally a handheld device like mobile phones,
so the receiver complexity and cost comes into the real time
picture. But the precoding gives solution for all above
problems.
Precoding is defined as appropriate weighing of data
streams emitted from the transmit antennas such that
throughput is maximized at the receiver. The weighing matrix
is obtained through the knowledge of channel state
information at the transmitter (CSIT). In practice, the CSI
estimate available at the transmitter is noisy due to
quantization error, channel time variations and feedback
channel error. This will lead to poor performance of precoder.
But the receiver estimation of precoder using training
sequence will be accurate. This will be made available at the
transmitter through feedback channels. Though CSIT is not
essential in SU-MIMO, is of critical importance to MUMIMO networks [15]. And the need for CSIT feedback in
MU-MIMO reduces spectral efficiency of uplink channel
capacity. Finally, another challenge related to MU-MIMO lies
in the scheduling of users for data services. Its complexity
depends upon the user group size, precoding, decoding and
CSIT feedback technique. Precoding increases the spatial
diversity and spatial multiplexing gain, whereas the
scheduling increases the multiuser diversity gain.
Most of the precoder functions based upon duality between
the uplink and downlink. It states that downlink and uplink
have same signal-to-interference-noise ratio (SINR) under
same power constraint [27-28]. In this case if a solution to
any of the link is found, it can also be used for the other too.
It also suggest that the precoding and decoding matrices are
same for uplink and downlink which can calculated through
the receive processing (Wiener filter) [29].
The CSIT can be acquired using open loop and closed loop
channel acquisition. In open loop CSIT is obtained through
reciprocity principle, where as in closed loop receiver
feedback CSI in reverse link to transmitter. But precoding
with closed loop control gives better performance when
compared with open loop control.
The precoding strategy can be divided as linear and
nonlinear precoding. The linear precoder directs signal
spatially and allocate power in a water-filling fashion [30]
over both space and time. It functions as a input shaper and
multimode beamformer which contains orthogonal beamdirections, each with a defined beam power. Some of the
classifications of minimum mean square error (MMSE)
precoding [31], linear precoding are zero-forcing (ZF)
precoding [32], signal to leakage ratio plus noise ratio (SLNR)
precoding [33], etc. These linear precoders provide acceptable
performance with low computational complexity. Nonlinear
precoding is designed based upon dirty paper coding (DPC)
concept. It says that if the interference at the channel is known
to transmitter, it can be subtracted from the data stream
without power penalty. But it requires full CSIT to achieve
weighted sum capacity. This include DPC [34], TomlinsonHarashima precoding [35-36], vector perturbation precoding
[37].
The MU-MIMO requires CSI at transmitter, which is
possible through feedback strategy. To reduce the channel
overhead, the key features of CSI are quantized at the receiver

and fed back to the transmitter [38]. The threshold based

feedback [39] helps for feedback reduction during scheduling
stage. The other challenge in MU-MIMO cross-layer design is
the scheduling procedure for the selection of group of users
who will be served simultaneously. There are many different
schemes used for the scheduling includes maximum rate
technique, random user selection and greedy user selection
[40]. In greedy scheduling, the transmitter chooses user which
have highest channel capacity and the successive user
selection will be in the basis of highest channel capacity from
the remaining unselected user.
C. Co-Operative MIMO
The spectral efficiency specification of IMT Advanced
(4G) cant be achieved by LTE and LTE Advanced system. To
improve the spectral efficiency in cellular network the
frequency reuse is assigned to one. But it introduces
interference among adjacent cells, especially for edge cell
users. In a MU-MIMO system, the precoding and
beamforming mitigate only intra cell interference while the
inter cell interference is treated as a noise. In reality the
capacity gain of multicell MU-MIMO is significantly limited
by inter cell interference also called as co-channel interference
(CCI). To overcome this BS cooperative processing is
explored to mitigate CCI in downlink channel.
Cooperation is defined as multiple BS cooperates to serve
multiple mobile station (MS) in difference cells. This system
is defined in IMT Advanced is named as coordinated
Multipoint Transmission (CoMP) [41]. The CoMP has two
performance measures on spectral efficiency: cell edge user
spectral efficiency and cell average spectral efficiency. The
former one specifies 5 percentile of spectral efficiency of MS
while the later specifies the average spectral efficiency of all
MS in the system.
CoMP is classified as co-ordinated beamforming/coordinated scheduling (CB/CS) and joint transmission. In
CB/CS [41] the frame is transmitted between two cells by
coordinated beamforming and scheduling. On the other hand,
in joint processing multiple cells transmit at the same time and
frequency to a MS along with BS cooperation. The joint
processing has two methods of transmission: coherent and non
coherent. In coherent transmission precoding is done between
the cells and combines at their receiver in phase. While in non
coherent soft combining reception is used. The key problems
in CoMP are in designing the joint matrix for inter cell
mitigation and enhancing the spectral efficiency under power
constraint situation. Apart from this CoMP results in power
gain, channel rank/ conditioning advantage and macro
diversity protection in multicell environment. The further
details on CoMP is addressed by the authors in [42-45]
D. Interference Alignment
Interference Alignment (IA) is a evolutionary idea that
challenges the conventional capacity analysis of interference
limited networks. It is a cooperative interference management
strategy that attempts to align interfering signals in time,
frequency, or space. In MU-MIMO networks, it uses
the spatial dimension offered by multiple antennas for
interference alignment. The key idea behind the concept is the

2013 International Conference on Green Computing, Communication and Conservation of Energy (ICGCE)

247

users coordinate their transmissions by maximizing the spaces

for the desired signal. This makes the interference to be
aligned in one half of the signal space at each receiver leaving
the other half available for the desired signal.
The characterization of initial capacity limits of the
network can be found by the metric degree of freedom (DoF).
It is defined as number of non interfering paths that can be
created in transmitter and receiver. Jafar [46] investigated DoF
of MIMO interference channel. He concluded that for an
interference channel with 2 users each with N transmitter and
receiver the available DoF can range from N to 1. The
distributive nature of antenna at transmitter and receiver
significantly affect the DoF value.

channel. It results that each receiver could see its own

transmitter signal over half of the total available duration for
transmission. That is each user is able to achieve half the
DoF, totally K/2 DoF for K users. And the sum capacity of K
user is given as,

C ( SNR) =

K
log( SNR) + o(log( SNR))
2

It shows that the alignment may allow the sum capacity of

the network to grow linearly with respect to network size,
without any bound. The further details on IA concepts, DoF,
challenges and future scope are discussed by the authors in
[52-54].
IV.

To illustrate the IA concept, consider the four user system

of Fig. 4 transmitting signal to its one of its corresponding
receiver. In this system, each receiver experiences total of 3
interfering signal along with its desired signal. Without careful
structure, the interference signals may occupy all three
dimensions at the receiver, leaving the desired one. As a
solution the IA allows cooperative precoding of each users
transmission such that the interfering signal will occupy two
dimensions of space leaving behind one dimension for the
desired signals error free transmission.
Let the user i messages with si symbols are subjected to
precoding matrix Mi at the transmitter side and observed at the
receiver j after propagation through the channel H. The
receiver output is given as,
(8)

i j

Where ni is the noise observed at the receiver. The IA is

defined at this point by designing Mi such a way that the term
Hi,jMjsj is made to be null for all ij. Designing IA precoders
requires accurate knowledge of the CSI at the transmitter to
align the interference. The CSIT could be obtained using
reciprocity [47-48] or CSI feedback method [49]. Ayach and
et. al. proposed analog feedback [50] as an alternative to
reciprocity and limited feedback based alignment. It was
proved that full multiplexing gain is observed with perfect
channel knowledge preserved by analog feedback.
The performance of IA network was investigated by
Cadambe [51]. He considered a network of K user, each with
single antenna for transmission operating in interference prone

248

CONCLUSION

In this paper, we discussed various interference mitigation

schemes. The discussion starts with basic features of MUMIMO followed by beamforming and precoding techniques
for intra - cell interference mitigation. The beamforming is
useful for the system with more number of transmit antenna.
Precoding is a powerful tool in interference mitigation by
simplifying receiver equipment. It requires full or limited
knowledge of CSIT and proper user selection. So in MUMIMO, precoding is followed by scheduling and limited
feedback algorithm for efficient result. Since precoding and
beamforming fails to combat with inter-user interference, the
discussion is further extended to inter-cell mitigation
techniques. The investigation on interference alignment and
cooperative MIMO shows that they lead to positive result in
spectral efficiency and inter-cell interference mitigation.

Fig. 4. Interference Alignment of a Network with K=4.

yi = H i ,i M i si + H i , j M j s j + ni

(5)

REFERENCES
[1]

3G Americas white paper, 3GPP Mobile Broadband Innovation Path to

4G: Release 9, Release 10 and Beyond: HSPA+, SAE/LTE and LTEAdvanced,
February
2010,
[online].
Available:
http://
www.4gamericas.org/documents/3GPP_Rel-_Beyond
%20Feb%
202010 . pdf.
[2] Cisco VNI Forecast, Cisco Visual Networking Index: Global Mobile
Data Traffic Forecast Update, 20122017, Cisco Public Information,
February
2013,[online].
Available:
http://www.cisco.com/en/US/solutions/collateral/ns341/ns525/ns537/ns7
05/ns827/white_paper_c11-520862.html.
[3] 3rd
Generation
Partnership
Project
[Online].
Available:http://www.3gpp.org/
[4] The LTE website. [online]. Available: http://www.3gpp.org/LTE
[5] The LTE Advanced website. [online]. Available: www.3gpp.org/lteadvanced
[6] A. Ghosh, R. Ratasuk, B. Mondal, N.Mangalvedhe and T. Thomas,
LTE-Advanced: Next-Generation Wireless Boradband Technology,
IEEE Wireless Comm. Mag., pp. 10-22, June 2008.
[7] D.W. Bliss, K.W. Forsythe, A.O. Hero, and A.F. Yegulalp,
Environmental Issues for MIMO Capacity, IEEE Trans.Signal
Process, vol. 50, no.9, pp. 21282142, 2002.
[8] D.W. Bliss, A.M. Chan, and N.B. Chang, MIMO Wireless
Communication Channel Phenomenology, IEEE Trans. Antennas
Propag.,vol. 52, no.8, pp. 20732082, 2004.
[9] D. Gesbert, H. Blcskei, D.A. Gore, and A.J. Paulraj, Performance
Evaluation for Scattering MIMO Channel Models, Thirty-Fourth
Asilomar Conf. on Signals, Systems & Computers 1, Pacific Grove,
Calif., pp. 748752, November 2001.
[10] V. Tarokh, N. Seshadri, and A.R. Calderbank, SpaceTime Codes for
High Data Rate Wireless Communication: Performance Criterion and

2013 International Conference on Green Computing, Communication and Conservation of Energy (ICGCE)

[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]

[24]

[25]
[26]

[27]

[28]
[29]

[30]

[31]

[32]

[33]

[34]
[35]

Code Construction, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 44, no.2, pp. 744
765, 1998.
G. Ganesan and P. Stoica, SpaceTime Block Codes: A Maximum
SNR Approach, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory 47 (4), pp. 16501656, 2001.
A. El Gamal and T.M. Cover, Multiple user information theory, Proc.
IEEE, vol. 68, no. 12, pp. 14661483, December 1980.
H.Hourani, An overview of diversity techniques in wireless
communication systems, IEEE JSAC , pp. 1200-1205, October 2004.
S. Alamouti, Space block coding: A simple transmitter diversity
technique for wireless communications, IEEE J. Select. Areas.
Commun., vol. 16, pp. 1451---1458, October 1998.
D. Gesbert, M. Kountouris, R.W. Heath Jr., C.-B. Chae, and T. Slzer,
From Single User to Multi User Communications: Shifting the MIMO
Paradigm, IEEE Signal Processing Magazine, vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 36-46,
2007.
Q. H. Spencer, C. B. Peel, A. L. Swindlehurst, and M. Haardt, An
introduction to the multi-user MIMO downlink, IEEE Commun. Mag.,
vol. 42, no. 10, pp. 6067, 2004.
W. Yu and J. M. Cioffi, Trellis precoding for the broadcast channel, in
Proc. Global TelecommunicationsConf., pp. 13441348, 2001.
A. B. Carleial, Interference channels, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol.
24, no. 1, pp. 6070, 1978.
NTT DoCoMo, Update of E-UTRA and IMT-Advanced
Requirements, January 2009.
S. Parkvall and D. Astely, The evolution of lte toward lte advanced,
Journal of Communications, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 146154, April 2009.
T. M. Cover and J. A. Thomas, Elements of Information Theory,
Wiley-Interscience, 1991.
Rohde & Schwarz, LTE Transmission Modes and Beamforming,
Application Note 1MA186, October 2011.
R. O. Schmidt, Multiple emitter location and signal parameter
estimation, in Proc. RADC Spectral Estimation Workshop, Rome, pp.
243258, 1979.
A. Paulraj, R. Roy, and T. Kailath, A subspace rotation approach to
signal parameter estimation, Proc. IEEE, vol. 74, pp. 10441046, Jul.
1986.
Rohde & Schwarz, LTE Beamforming Measurements, Application
Note 1MA187, October 2011.
A. Goldsmith, S. A. Jafar, N. Jindal and S. Vishwanath, Capacity limit
of MIMO channels, IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in
Communications, vol. 21, no. 5, pp. 684-702, June 2003.
M. Schubert and H. Boche, Solution of the multiuser downlink
beamforming problem with individual SINR constraints," IEEE Trans.
on Vehicular Technology, vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 18-28, January 2004.
S. Shi and M. Schubert, MMSE transmit optimization for multi-user
multi-antenna systems," in Proc. IEEE ICASSP 05, March 2005.
A. M. Khachan, A. J. Tenenbaum, and R. S. Adve, Linear processing
for the downlink in multiuser MIMO systems with multiple data
streams," in Proc. IEEE ICC 06, June 2006.
W. Yu, W. Rhee, S. Boyd, and J. M. Ciofli, Iterative water-filling for
Gaussian vector multiple access channels,Proc. 2001 IEEE
International Symposium on Information Theory, pp. 322, Washington,
DC, 24-29 June. 2001.
M. Schubert, S. Shi, et.al, Downlink sum-MSE transceiver
optimization for linear multi-user MIMO system, in Proc. Of IEEE
asilomar conference on signals, systems and computers, pp. 1424-1428,
November 2005.
Q. H. Spencer, A. L. Swindlehurst, M. Haardt, Zero-Forcing methods
for downlink spatial multiplexing in multi-user MIMO channels, IEEE
Trans. on signal processing, vol. 52, pp. 461-471, 2004.
M. Sadek, A. Tarighat, A.H. Sayed, A leakage-based precoding scheme
for downlink multi user MIMO channels, IEEE Trans. on wireless
communications, vol. 6(5), pp. 1711-1721, 2007
M. Costa, Writing on dirty paper, IEEE Transactions on Information
Theory, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 439441, 1983.
M. Tomlinson, New automatic equalizer employing modulo
arithmetic, Electronics Letters, vol. 7, no. 5, pp. 138139, 1971.

[36] H. Harashima and H. Miyakawa, Matched-transmission technique for

channels with intersymbol interference, IEEE Transactions on
Communications, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 774780, 1972.
[37] B. M. Hochwald, C. B. Peel, and A. L. Swindlehurst, A vectorperturbation technique for near-capacity multiantenna multi-user
communication - Part II: Perturbation, IEEE Transactions on
Communications, vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 537544, 2005.
[38] D. J. Love, R. W. Heath Jr., W. Santipach, and M. L. Honig, What is
the value of limited feedback for MIMO channels? IEEE Comm. Mag.,
vol. 42, no. 10, pp. 5459, October 2003.
[39] D. Gesbert and M.-S. Alouini, How much feedback is multi-user
diversity really worth? in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. on Comm. (ICC), Paris,
France, pp. 234238, June 2004.
[40] G. Dimic and N. D. Sidiropoulos, On downlink beamforming with
greedy user selection: Performance analysis and a simple new
algorithm, IEEE Trans. Sig. Proc., vol. 53, no. 10, pp. 38573868,
October 2005.
[41] L. Liu, J. Zhang, J.-C. Yu, and J. Lee, Inter-cell interference
coordination through limited feedback, International Journal of Digital
Multimedia Broadcasting, vol. 2010, February 2010.
[42] S. Shamai, O. Somekh, O. Simeone, A. Sanderovich, B. Zaidel, and V.
Poor, Cooperative multi-cell networks: impact of limited-capacity
backhaul and inter-users links, in IEEE International Symposium on
Information Theory, 2007.
[43] Hongyuan Zhang and Huaiyu Dai, Co-channel Interference
Mitigation and Cooperative Processing in Downlink Multicell Multiuser
MIMO Networks, EURASIP Journal on Wireless Communicaitons and
Networking Special Issue on multiuser MIMO networks, vol. 2004,
no. 2, pp. 222-235, December 2004.
[44] L. Liu, J. Zhang, Y. Yi,H. Li, J. Zhang, Combating Interference : MUMIMO, CoMP and HetNet, Journal of Communications, vol. 9, pp.
646-655, September 2013.
[45] S. Shamai and B. M. Zaidel, Enhancing the cellular downlink capacity
via co-processing at the transmission end, Proc. 2001 Spring IEEE
Vehicular Technology Conf., pp. 1745-1749, May 2001.
[46] S. Jafar and M. Fakhereddin, Degrees of freedom for the MIMO
interference channel, in Proc. of ISIT, 2006.
[47] K. Gomadam, V. Cadambe, and S. Jafar, Approaching the capacity of
wireless networks through distributed interference alignment, Proc. of
IEEE Global Telecommunications Conference, pp. 1 6, December
2008.
[48] C. Shi, R. A. Berry, and M. L. Honig, Adaptive Beamforming in
Interference Networks via Bi-Directional Training, ArXiv preprint
arXiv:1003.4764,
Mar.
2010.
[Online].
Available:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1003.4764
[49] S. Peters and R. W. Heath, Jr., Cooperative algorithms for MIMO
interference channels, IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology,
vol. 60, no. 1, pp. 206 218, January 2011.
[50] O. El Ayach and R. W. Heath, Jr., Interference Alignment with Analog
Channel State Feedback, IEEE Transactions on Wireless
Communications, vol. 11, no.2, pp 626-636, February 2012.
[51] V. R. Cadambe and S. A. Jafar, Interference Alignment and Degrees of
Freedom of the K-User Interference Channel, IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory,
vol. 54, no. 8, pp. 34253441, August 2008.
[52] El Ayach, O.; Peters, S.W.; Heath, R.W., Jr., "The practical challenges
of interference alignment," Wireless Communications, IEEE , vol.20,
no.1, pp.35,42, February 2013
[53] M. Razaviyayn, G. Lyubeznik, and Z.-Q. Luo, On the degrees of
freedom achievable through interference alignment in a MIMO
interference channel, IEEE Trans. on Signal Processing, vol. 60, no. 2,
pp. 812 821, February 2012.
[54] O. El Ayach, A. Lozano, and R. W. Heath, Jr., On the Overhead of
Interference Alignment: Training, Feedback, and Cooperation, IEEE
Trans. on Wireless Communications , vol. 11, no. 11,pp. 4192 4203,
December 2012.

2013 International Conference on Green Computing, Communication and Conservation of Energy (ICGCE)

249