Professional Documents
Culture Documents
A Coordinated Approach To Channel Estimation in Large-Scale Multiple-Antenna Systems
A Coordinated Approach To Channel Estimation in Large-Scale Multiple-Antenna Systems
2, FEBRUARY 2013
AbstractThis paper addresses the problem of channel es- beamforming does not require the exchange of user message
timation in multi-cell interference-limited cellular networks. We information (e.g., in network MIMO). Yet it still demands
consider systems employing multiple antennas and are interested the exchange of channel state information (CSI) across the
in both the finite and large-scale antenna number regimes (so-
called massive MIMO). Such systems deal with the multi-cell transmitters on a fast time scale and low-latency basis, making
interference by way of per-cell beamforming applied at each base almost as challenging to implement in practice as the above
station. Channel estimation in such networks, which is known mentioned network MIMO schemes.
to be hampered by the pilot contamination effect, constitutes a
Fortunately a path towards solving some of the essential
major bottleneck for overall performance. We present a novel
approach which tackles this problem by enabling a low-rate practical problems related to beamforming-based interference
coordination between cells during the channel estimation phase avoidance was suggested in [1]. In this work, it was pointed
itself. The coordination makes use of the additional second-order out that the need for exchanging Channel State Information at
statistical information about the user channels, which are shown Transmitter (CSIT) between base stations could be alleviated
to offer a powerful way of discriminating across interfering users
by simply increasing the number of antennas, M , at each
with even strongly correlated pilot sequences. Importantly, we
demonstrate analytically that in the large-number-of-antennas transmitter (so-called massive MIMO). This result is rooted in
regime, the pilot contamination effect is made to vanish com- the law of large numbers, which predicts that, as the number of
pletely under certain conditions on the channel covariance. antennas increases, the vector channel for a desired terminal
Gains over the conventional channel estimation framework are will tend to be more orthogonal to the vector channel of a
confirmed by our simulations for even small antenna array sizes.
randomly selected interfering user. This makes it possible to
Index Termsmassive MIMO, pilot contamination, channel reject interference at the base station side by simply aligning
estimation, scheduling, covariance information. the beamforming vector with the desired channel (Maximum
Ratio Combining or spatial matched filter). Hence in theory,
I. I NTRODUCTION a simple fully distributed per-cell beamforming scheme can
offer performance scaling (with M ) similar to a more complex
use of a covariance-aware pilot assignment strategy within The powers of pilot sequences are assumed equal such that
the channel estimation phase itself. While diversity-based |sl1 |2 + + |sl |2 = , l = 1, 2, . . . , L.
scheduling methods have been popularized for maximizing The channel vector between the l-th cell user and the target
various throughput-fairness performance criteria [5], [6], [7], base station is hl . Thus, h1 is the desired channel while hl , l >
[8], the potential benefit of user-to-pilot assignment in the 1 are interference channels. All channel vectors are assumed
context of interference-prone channel estimation has received to be M 1 complex Gaussian, undergoing correlation due to
very little attention so far. the finite multipath angle spread at the base station side [10]:
More specifically, our contributions are the following: We 1/2
first develop a Bayesian channel estimation method making hl = Rl hW l , l = 1, 2, . . . , L, (2)
explicit use of covariance information in the inter-cell inter- where hW l CN (0, IM ) is the spatially white M 1 SIMO
ference scenario with pilot contamination. We show that the channel, and CN (0, IM ) denotes zero-mean complex Gaus-
channel estimation performance is a function of the degree sian distribution with covariance matrix IM . In this paper, we
to which dominant signal subspaces pertaining to the desired make the assumption that covariance matrix Rl E{hl hH l }
and interference channel covariance overlap with each other. can be obtained separately from the desired and interference
Therefore we exploit the fact that the desired user signals and channels (see Section VI for how this could be done in
interfering user signals are received at the base station with practice).
(at least approximately) finite-rank covariance matrices. This During the pilot phase, the M signal received at the
is typically the case in realistic scenarios due to the limited target base station is
angle spread followed by incoming paths originating from L
street-level users [9]. Finally, we propose a pilot sequence
Y= hl sTl + N, (3)
assignment strategy based on assigning carefully selected l=1
groups of users to identical pilot sequences. The gains are
shown to depend on system parameters such as the typical where N CM is the spatially and temporally white ad-
angle spread measured at the base station and the number of ditive Gaussian noise (AWGN) with zero-mean and element-
base station antennas. Performance close to the interference- wise variance n2 .
free channel estimation scenario is obtained for moderate
numbers of antennas and users. III. C OVARIANCE - BASED C HANNEL E STIMATION
The notations adopted in the paper are as follows. We use A. Pilot Contamination
boldface to denote matrices and vectors. Specifically, IM de- Conventional channel estimation relies on correlating the
notes the M M identity matrix. Let (X)T , (X) , and (X)H received signal with the known pilot sequence (referred here
denote the transpose, conjugate, and conjugate transpose of as Least Squares (LS) estimate for example). Hence, using the
a matrix X respectively. E {} denotes the expectation, F model in (3), an LS estimator for the desired channel h1 is
denotes the Frobenius norm, and diag{a1 , ..., aN } denotes a
diagonal matrix or a block diagonal matrix with a1 , ..., aN at LS = Ys1 (s1 T s1 )1 .
h (4)
1
the main diagonal. The Kronecker product of two matrices X
The conventional estimator suffers from a lack of orthogo-
and Y is denoted by X Y. is used for definitions.
nality between the desired and interfering pilots, an effect
known as pilot contamination [2], [11], [12]. In particular,
II. S IGNAL AND C HANNEL M ODELS
when the same pilot sequence is reused in all L cells, i.e.,
We consider a network of L time-synchronized1 cells, with s1 = = sL = s, the estimator can be written as
full spectrum reuse. Estimation of (block-fading) channels in
LS = h1 + hl + Ns / .
L
the uplink is considered,2 and all the base stations are equipped h (5)
1
with M antennas. To simplify the notations, we assume the 1st l=1
cell is the target cell, unless otherwise notified. We assume the As it appears in (5), the interfering channels leak directly
pilots, of length , used by single-antenna users in the same into the desired channel estimate. The estimation performance
cell are mutually orthogonal. As a result, intra-cell interference is then limited by the signal to interfering ratio at the base
is negligible in the channel estimation phase. However, non- station, which in turns limits the ability to design an effective
orthogonal (possibly identical) pilots are reused from cell to interference-avoiding beamforming solution.
cell, resulting in pilot contamination from L 1 interfering
cells. For ease of exposition, we consider the case where a
B. Bayesian Estimation
single user per cell transmits its pilot sequence to its serving
base. The pilot sequence used in the l-th cell is denoted by: We hereby propose an improved channel estimator with the
aim of reducing the pilot contamination effect, and taking
sl = [ sl1 sl2 sl ]T . (1) advantage of the multiple antenna dimensions. We suggest
1 Note that assuming synchronization between uplink pilots provides a worst to do so by exploiting side information lying in the second
case scenario from a pilot contamination point of view, since any lack of order statistics of the channel vectors. The role of covariance
synchronization will tend to statistically decorrelate the pilots. matrices is to capture structure information related to the
2 Similar ideas would be applicable for downlink channel estimation,
distribution (mainly mean and spread) of the multipath angles
provided the UE is equipped with multiple antennas as well, in which case
the estimation would help resolve interferences originating from neighboring of arrival at the base station. Due to the typically elevated
base stations. position of the base station, rays impinge on the antennas with
266 IEEE JOURNAL ON SELECTED AREAS IN COMMUNICATIONS, VOL. 31, NO. 2, FEBRUARY 2013
a finite angle-of-arrival (AOA) spread and a user location- Using the maximum a posteriori (MAP) decision rule, the
dependent mean angle. Note that covariance-aided channel Bayesian estimator yields the most probable value given the
estimation itself is not a novel idea, e.g., in [13]. In [14], observation y [15]:
the authors focus on optimal design of pilot sequences and = arg
they exploit the covariance matrices of desired channels and h max p(h|y)
hCLM 1
colored interference. The optimal training sequences were = arg min l(h)
developed with adaptation to the statistics of disturbance. In hCLM 1
our paper, however, the pilot design is shown not having an = (n2 ILM + RSH S)1 RSH y. (13)
impact on interference reduction, since fully aligned pilots
are transmitted. Instead, we focus on i) studying the limiting Interestingly, the Bayesian estimate as shown in (13) coin-
behavior of covariance-based estimates in the presence of cides with the minimum mean square error (MMSE) estimate,
interference and large-scale antenna arrays, and ii) how to which has the form
shape covariance information for the full benefit of channel MMSE = RSH (SRSH + 2 I M )1 y.
h (14)
n
estimation quality.
Two Bayesian channel estimators can be formed. In the first, (13) and (14) are equivalent thanks to the matrix inversion
all channels are estimated at the target base station (including identity (I + AB)1 A = A(I + BA)1 .
interfering ones). In the second, only h1 is estimated. By
vectorizing the received signal and noise, our model (3) can C. Channel Estimation with Full Pilot Reuse
be represented as
Previously we have given expressions whereby interfering
y = Sh + n, (6)
channels are estimated simultaneously with the desired chan-
where y = vec(Y), n = vec(N), and h CLM1 is obtained nel. This could be of use in designing zero-forcing type re-
by stacking all L channels into a vector. The pilot matrix S ceivers. Even though it is clear that Zero-Forcing (ZF) type (or
is defined as other sophisticated) receivers would give better performance
at finite M (see [3] for an analysis of this problem), in this
S s1 IM sL IM . (7)
paper, however, we focus on simple matched filters, since
Applying Bayes rule, the conditional distribution of the such filters are made more relevant by the users of massive
channels h given the received training signal y is MIMO. Matched filters require the knowledge of the desired
channel only, so that interference channels can be considered
p(h)p(y|h)
p(h|y) = . (8) as nuisance parameters. For this case, the single user channel
p(y) estimation shown below can be used. For ease of exposition,
We use the multivariate Gaussian probability density function the worst case situation with a unique pilot sequence reused
(PDF) of the random vector h and assume its rows h1 , , hL in all L cells is considered:
are mutually independent, giving the joint PDF:
L s = [ s1 s2 s ]T . (15)
H 1
exp hl R l hl Similar to (7), we define a training matrix S s IM . Note
l=1
p(h) =
LM M
. (9) that SH S = IM . Then the vectorized received training signal
(det R1 det RL ) at the target base station can be expressed as
Note that we derive this Bayesian estimator under the stan- L
dard condition of covariance matrix invertibility, although we y = S hl + n. (16)
show later this hypothesis is actually challenged by reality l=1
in the large-number-of-antennas regime. Fortunately, our final
expressions for channel estimators completely skip the covari- Since the Bayesian estimator and the MMSE estimator are
ance inversion. identical, we omit the derivation and simply give the expres-
Using (6), we may obtain: sion of this estimator for the desired channel h1 only:
H
We are interested in the mean squared error (MSE) of where D is the antenna spacing at the base station and
the proposed estimators, which can be defined as: M is the signal wavelength, such that D /2. ip [0, ]
E{h h2 }, or for the single user channel estimate M1 is a random AOA. Note that we can limit angles to [0, ]
F
E{h 1 h1 2 }. because any [, 0] can be replaced by giving the
F
The estimation MSE of (13) is same steering vector.
1 Below, we momentarily assume that the selected users
SH S
M = tr R ILM + 2 R . (19) exhibit multipath AOAs that do not overlap with the AOAs for
n the desired user, i.e., the AOA spread and user locations are
such that multipath for the desired user are confined to a region
Specifically, when identical pilots are used in all cells, the of space where interfering paths are very unlikely to exist.
MSEs are Although the asymptotic analysis below makes use of this
1
JLL IM condition, it will be shown in Section IV how such a structure
M = tr R ILM + R , (20) can be shaped implicitly by the coordinated pilot assignment.
n2
Finally, simulations reveal in Section V the robustness with
1 respect to an overlap between AOA regions of desired and
n2
L
interference channels (for instance in the case of Gaussian
M1 = tr R1 R21 IM + Rl , (21)
AOA distribution).
l=1
Our main result is as follows:
where JLL is an L L unit matrix consisting of all 1s. The
derivations to obtain M and M1 use standard methods and Theorem 1. Assume the multipath angle of arrival yielding
the details are omitted here due to lack of space. However, channel hj , j = 1, . . . , L, in (24), is distributed according to
similar methods can be found in [16]. Of course, it is clear an arbitrary density pj () with bounded support, i.e., pj () =
from (20) and (21) that the MSE is not dependent on the 0 for / [jmin , jmax ] for some fixed jmin jmax [0, ] . If
specific design of the pilot sequence, but on the power of it. the L 1 intervals [imin , imax ] , i = 2, . . . , L are strictly
We can readily obtain the channel estimate of (18) in an non-overlapping with the desired channels AOA interval4
interference-free scenario, by setting interference terms to [1min , 1max ], we have
zero: lim h no int .
1 = h (26)
1
M
no int = R1 2 IM + R1 1 SH (Sh1 + n),
h (22)
1 n
Proof: From the channel model (24), we get
where the superscript no int refers to the no interference
P
case, and the corresponding MSE: i2 H
1 Ri = E{a(ip )a(ip ) } = i2 E{a(i )a(i )H },
P p=1
M1 no int
= tr R1 IM + 2 R1 . (23)
n
where i has the PDF pi () for all i = 1, . . . , L. The proof of
Theorem 1 relies on three intermediate lemmas which exploit
D. Large Scale Analysis the eigenstructures of the covariance matrices. The proofs of
We seek to analyze the performance for the above estimators the lemmas are given in the appendix. The essential ingredient
in the regime of large antenna number M . For tractability, our is to exhibit an asymptotic (at large M ) orthonormal vector
analysis is based on the assumption of uniform linear array basis for Ri constructed from steering vectors at regularly
(ULA) with supercritical antenna spacing (i.e., less than or sampled spatial frequencies.
equal to half wavelength).
Lemma 1. Define (x) [ 1 ejx ej(M1)x ]T
Hence we have the following multipath model3
and A span{(x), x [1, 1]}. Given b1 , b2 [1, 1] and
P
1 b1 < b2 , define B span{(x), x [b1 , b2 ]}, then
hi = a(ip )ip , (24)
P p=1 dim{A} = M
dim{B} (b2 b1 )M /2 when M grows large.
where P is the arbitrary number of i.i.d. paths, ip
CN (0, i2 ) is independent over channel index i and path index Proof: See Appendix A.
p, where i is the i-th channels average attenuation. a() is Lemma 1 characterizes the number of dimensions a linear
the steering vector, as shown in [17] space has, which is spanned by (x), in which x plays the
role of spatial frequency.
1
D
ej2 cos() Lemma 2. With a bounded support of AOAs, the rank of
a() .. , (25) channel covariance matrix Ri satisfies:
.
(M 1)D
ej2 cos() rank(Ri )
di , as M ,
M
3 Note that the Gaussian model (2) can well approximate the multipath
model (24) as long as there are enough paths. Since the number of elementary 4 This condition is just one example of practical scenario leading to
paths is typically very large, we have P 1 this assumption is valid in non-overlapping signal subspaces between the desired and the interference
practice. covariances, however, more general multipath scenarios could be used.
268 IEEE JOURNAL ON SELECTED AREAS IN COMMUNICATIONS, VOL. 31, NO. 2, FEBRUARY 2013
TABLE I
BASIC SIMULATION PARAMETERS where is a constant dependent on the prescribed average
SNR at cell edge. dlu is the geographical distance. is the
Cell radius 1 km path-loss exponent.
Cell edge SNR 20 dB
Number of users per-cell 10 Two types of AOA distributions are considered here, a non-
Distance from a user to its BS 800 m bounded one (Gaussian) and a bounded one (uniform):
Path loss exponent 3 1) Gaussian distribution: For the channel coefficients hlu ,
Carrier frequency 2 GHz
the AOAs of all P paths are i.i.d. Gaussian random variables
Antenna spacing /2
Number of paths 50 with mean lu and standard deviation . Here we suppose
Pilot length 10 all the desired channels and interference channels have the
same standard deviation of AOA. Note that Gaussian AOA
distributions cannot fulfill the conditions of non-overlapping
when the corresponding L2 covariance matrices exhibit the AOA support domains in Theorem 1, nevertheless the use
most orthogonal signal subspaces. Note that the MSE-based of the proposed method in this context also gives substantial
criterion (31) implicitly exploits the property of subspace gains as 2 decreases.
orthogonality, e.g., at high SNRs, the proposed MSE-based cri- 2) Uniform distribution: For the channel hlu , the AOAs
terion will be minimized by choices of users with covariance are uniformly distributed over [lu , lu + ], where lu
matrices showing maximum signal subspace orthogonality, is the mean AOA.
thereby implicitly satisfying the conditions behind Theorem Two performance metrics are used to evaluate the proposed
1. In view of minimizing the search complexity, a classical channel estimation scheme. The first one is a normalized
greedy approach is proposed: channel estimation error
1) Initialize U = L $ $2
$ $
2) For l = 1, . . . , L do: $ h jj h jj $
Kl = arg min F(U {k}) j=1 F
kG err 10log10 , (34)
L
2
U U {Kl } hjj F
End j=1
The coordination can be interpreted as follows: To minimize jj are the desired channel at the j-th
where hjj and h
the estimation error, a base station tends to assign a given
base station and its estimate respectively. Note that we only
pilot to the user whose spatial feature has most differences
consider the estimation error of the desired channel. The
with the interfering users assigned the same pilot. Clearly,
second performance metric is the per-cell rate of the downlink
the performance will improve with the number of users, as it
obtained assuming standard MRC beamformer based on the
becomes more likely to find users with discriminable second-
channel estimates. The beamforming weight vector of the j-
order statistics. jj . We define the per-cell rate as
th base station is wjMRC = h
follows:
V. N UMERICAL R ESULTS L
In order to preserve fairness between users and avoid having log2 (1 + SINRj )
j=1
high-SNR users being systematically assigned the considered C ,
L
pilot, we consider a symmetric multicell network where the
where SINRj is the received signal-to-noise-plus-interference
users are all distributed on the cell edge and have the same
ratio (SINR) by the scheduled user in the j-th cell.
distance from their base stations. In practice, users with
Numerical results of the proposed channel estimation
greater average SNR levels (but equal across cells) can be
scheme are now shown. In the figures, LS stands for conven-
assigned together on a separate pilot pool. We adopt the model
tional LS channel estimation. CB denotes the Covariance-
of a cluster of synchronized and hexagonally shaped cells.
aided Bayesian estimation (without coordinated pilot as-
Some basic simulation parameters are given in Table I. We
signment), and CPA is the proposed Coordinated Pilot
keep these parameters in the following simulations, unless
Assignment-based Bayesian estimation.
otherwise stated.
The channel vector between the u-th user in the l-th cell We first validate Theorem 1 in Fig. 1 with a 2-cell network,
and the target base station is where the two users positions are fixed. AOAs of desired
channels are uniformly distributed with a mean of 90 degrees,
P
1 and the angle spreads of all channels are 20 degrees, yielding
hlu = a(lup )lup , (32) no overlap between desired and interfering multipaths. The pi-
P p=1
lot contamination is quickly eliminated with growing number
where lup and lup are the AOA and the attenuation of the of antennas.
p-th path between the u-th user in the l-th cell and the target In Fig. 2 and Fig. 3, the estimation MSEs versus the
base station respectively. Note that the variance of lup , p is BS antenna numbers are illustrated. When the AOAs have
2
lu , which includes the distance-based path loss lu between uniform distributions with = 10 degrees, as shown in Fig.
the user and the target base station (which can be anyone of 2, the performance of CPA estimator improves quickly with
the L base stations): M from 2 to 10. In the 2-cell network, CPA has the ability
of avoiding the overlap between AOAs for the desired and
lu = , (33)
dlu interference channels. For comparison, Fig. 3 is obtained with
270 IEEE JOURNAL ON SELECTED AREAS IN COMMUNICATIONS, VOL. 31, NO. 2, FEBRUARY 2013
10 5
Conventional LS Estimation
Covarianceaided Bayesian (CB) Estimation 10
15 LS Estimation
LS Interference Free Scenario
CB Interference Free Scenario CB Estimation
15 CPA Estimation
20 LS Interference Free
Estimation Error [dB]
25
25
30
30
35
35
40 40
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Antenna Number Antenna Number
Fig. 1. Estimation MSE vs. BS antenna number, 2-cell network, fixed Fig. 3. Estimation MSE vs. antenna number, Gaussian distributed AOAs
positions of two users, uniformly distributed AOAs with = 20 degrees, with = 10 degrees, 2-cell network.
non-overlapping multipath.
0
5
5
10
Conventional LS Estimation
Covarianceaided Bayesian Estimation 10
15 Coordinated Pilot Assignmentbased Estimation
LS Interference Free Scenario
Estimation Error [dB]
Estimation Error [dB]
20
25
25
30
30 Conventional LS Estimation
35
Covarianceaided Bayesian Estimation
Coordinated Pilot Assignmentbased Estimation
35
40 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Standard Deviation of AOA [degree]
Antenna Number
Fig. 2. Estimation MSE vs. antenna number, uniformly distributed AOAs Fig. 4. Estimation MSE vs. standard deviation of Gaussian distributed AOAs
with = 10 degrees, 2-cell network. with M = 10, 7-cell network.
Gaussian AOA distribution. We can observe a gap remains (due to pilot contamination) while it increases quickly with
between the CPA and the interference-free one, due to the M for the proposed estimators, indicating the full benefits of
non-boundedness of the Gaussian PDF. Nevertheless, the gains massive MIMO systems are exploited.
over the classical estimator remain substantial.
We then examine the impact of standard deviation of VI. D ISCUSSIONS
Gaussian AOAs on the estimation. Fig. 4 shows that the
estimation error is a monotonically increasing function of . In this paper, we assumed the individual covariance matrices
In contrast, an angle spread tending toward zero will cause can be estimated separately. This could be done in practice
the channel direction to collapse into a deterministic quantity, by exploiting resource blocks where the desired user and
yielding large gains for covariance-based channel estimation. interference users are known to be assigned at different times.
Figs. 5 and 6 depict the downlink per-cell rate achieved In future networks, one may imagine a specific training
by the MRC beamforming strategy and suggest large gains design for learning second-order statistics. Since covariance
when the Bayesian estimation is used in conjunction with information varies much slower than fast fading, such training
the proposed coordinated pilot assignment strategy and in- may not consume a substantial amount of resources.
termediate gains when it is used alone. Obviously the rate The proposed coordinated estimation method would intro-
performance almost saturates with M in the classical LS case duce information exchange between base stations. Although
YIN et al.: A COORDINATED APPROACH TO CHANNEL ESTIMATION IN LARGE-SCALE MULTIPLE-ANTENNA SYSTEMS 271
18 6.5
Conventional LS Estimation
Covarianceaided Bayesian Estimation
6 Coordinated Pilot Assignmentbased Estimation
16
5.5
14
5
12
4.5
10
4
8
3.5
6 3
Conventional LS Estimation
Covarianceaided Bayesian Estimation
Coordinated Pilot Assignmentbased Estimation
4 2.5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Antenna Number Standard Deviation of AOA [degree]
Fig. 5. Per-cell rate vs. antenna number, 2-cell network, Gaussian distributed Fig. 6. Per-cell rate vs. standard deviation of AOA (Gaussian distribution)
AOAs with = 10 degrees. with M = 10, 7-cell network.
the second-order statistics vary much slower than the instan- Thus {i |i = 1, . . . , M } forms an orthogonal basis of A, and
taneous CSI, base stations still have to update the covariance therefore
information every now and then so as to maintain performance. dim{A} = M.
Clearly, the overhead depends on the degree of user mobility.
Define
VII. C ONCLUSIONS
B
This paper proposes a covariance-aided channel estimation ( ) *
( M (b1 +1) M (b2 + 1)
framework in the context of interference-limited multi-cell (
i (i Z + 1 + 1, + 1 1 ,
multiple antenna systems. We develop Bayesian estimators and 2 2
demonstrate analytically the efficiency of such an approach for
large-scale antenna systems, leading to a complete removal where x and x are rounded-above and rounded-below
of pilot contamination effects in the case covariance matrices operators respectively. Then B is part of an orthogonal basis
satisfy a certain non-overlapping condition on their dominant of the space B, which indicates dim{B} |B|. By counting
subspaces. We suggest a coordinated pilot assignment strategy vectors in B, we have that
that helps shape covariance matrices toward satisfying the M (b2 + 1) M (b1 + 1)
needed condition and show channel estimation performance dim{B} + 1 + 1 1
2 2
close to interference-free scenarios. M (b2 + 1) M (b1 + 1)
= 1. (35)
2 2
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Now we define
Discussions with Dirk Slock and Laura Cottatellucci are ( ) *
gratefully acknowledged. ( M (b1 + 1)
C i ((i Z and i 1, + 1
2
) *
A PPENDIX M (b2 + 1)
+ 1, M .
2
A. Proof of Lemma 1:
Define the series Then C is part of an orthogonal basis of A. Furthermore,
2(i 1)
xi 1 + , i = 1, . . . , M, M (b1 + 1) M (b2 + 1)
M |C| = + 1 + M + 1 + 1
2 2
and M (b2 + 1) M (b1 + 1)
(xi ) =M + + 1.
i . 2 2
M
Consider the equivalent form of B
Then we have i A, i = 1, . . . , M and
+ (
b2 (
1 ej2(ik) (
H
k i = = 0, k = i. B= f (x)(x)dx( |f (x)| < , x [b1 , b2 ] .
M (1 e
j2(ik)
M ) b1 (
272 IEEE JOURNAL ON SELECTED AREAS IN COMMUNICATIONS, VOL. 31, NO. 2, FEBRUARY 2013
[12] B. Gopalakrishnan and N. Jindal, An analysis of pilot contamination David Gesbert (IEEE Fellow) is Professor and
on multi-user MIMO cellular systems with many antennas, in 2011 Head of the Mobile Communications Department,
IEEE 12th International Workshop on Signal Processing Advances in EURECOM, France. He obtained the Ph.D degree
Wireless Communications (SPAWC), Jun. 2011, pp. 381385. from Ecole Nationale Superieure des Telecommu-
[13] A. Scherb and K. Kammeyer, Bayesian channel estimation for doubly nications, France, in 1997. From 1997 to 1999 he
correlated MIMO systems, in Proc. IEEE Workshop Smart Antennas, has been with the Information Systems Laboratory,
2007. Stanford University. In 1999, he was a founding
[14] E. Bjornson and B. Ottersten, A framework for training-based esti- engineer of Iospan Wireless Inc, San Jose, Ca.,a
mation in arbitrarily correlated Rician MIMO channels with Rician startup company pioneering MIMO-OFDM (now
disturbance, IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 58, no. 3, pp. 1807 Intel). Between 2001 and 2003 he has been with the
1820, Mar. 2010. Department of Informatics, University of Oslo as an
[15] R. M. Gray and L. D. Davisson, An introduction to statistical signal adjunct professor. D. Gesbert has published about 200 papers and several
processing. Cambridge University Press, 2004. patents all in the area of signal processing, communications, and wireless
[16] S. M. Kay, Fundamentals of Statistical Signal Processing: Estimation networks.
Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1993. D. Gesbert was a co-editor of several special issues on wireless networks
[17] J. A. Tsai, R. M. Buehrer, and B. D. Woerner, The impact of AOA and communications theory, for JSAC (2003, 2007, 2009), EURASIP Journal
energy distribution on the spatial fading correlation of linear antenna on Applied Signal Processing (2004, 2007), Wireless Communications Mag-
array, in Proc. IEEE Vehicular Technology Conference, (VTC 02), azine (2006). He served on the IEEE Signal Processing for Communications
vol. 2, May 2002, pp. 933937. Technical Committee, 2003-2008. He authored or co-authored papers winning
[18] J. Nam, J. Ahn, and G. Caire, Joint spatial division and multiplexing: the 2004 IEEE Best Tutorial Paper Award (Communications Society) for
Realizing massive MIMO gains with limited channel state information, a 2003 JSAC paper on MIMO systems, 2005 Best Paper (Young Author)
in 46th Annual Conference on Information Sciences and Systems, (CISS Award for Signal Proc. Society journals, and the Best Paper Award for the
2012), Princeton University, NJ, USA, Mar. 2012. 2004 ACM MSWiM workshop. He co-authored the book Space time wireless
communications: From parameter estimation to MIMO systems, Cambridge
Press, 2006.