You are on page 1of 75

Coordinated Multi-Point (CoMP) in LTE

Wireless Communications Seminar

Stefan Schwarz
sschwarz@nt.tuwien.ac.at
March 27, 2014

institute of
telecommunications
y Slide 2 / 31 y y Contentsy

Contents

Overview of CoMP in LTE


CoMP Basics
3GPP’s View of CoMP

Multi-User MIMO Transmission


Mathematical System Model
Block-Diagonalization Precoding
Antenna Combining

Application Scenario

Conclusions

Stefan Schwarz
y Slide 3 / 31 y y Overview of CoMP in LTEy

CoMP Motivation

Global traffic voice and data (Source: Ericsson, June 2013)


15
Data: mobile PCs, tablets, mobile routers
Data: smartphones
Voice

Global traffic [Exabytes/month]


12

0
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Year
Estimated growth of mobile traffic (1 Exabyte = 1018 bytes); Ericsson traffic exploration tool [Ericsson, 2013b]

I Expected exponential growth in mobile data


[UMTS Forum, 2011, Cisco Systems Inc., 2013, Ericsson, 2013a]
I Mobile data traffic increases 10 – 17 fold between 2012 and 2017
I How to face the expected Capacity Crunch?

Stefan Schwarz
y Slide 4 / 31 y y Overview of CoMP in LTEy

CoMP Motivation (2)

I Common approaches to improve network capacity


I Increase the amount of available spectrum
e.g., 200 kHz in GSM ⇒ 100 MHz in LTE-A (carrier-aggregation)
I Improve the PHY: AMC, MIMO, OFDM
I Densify the network: small cells (micro/pico/femto)

I Significant bandwidth expansions cannot be expected in the near future


I Possible long-term solution Millimeter Waves
[Rappaport et al., 2013] (30 – 300 GHz ⇔ 1 – 10 mm)

I Potential PHY improvements with massive MIMO [Marzetta, 2010]

I Feasible short-term solution: increasing the network density


I Heterogeneous networks [Andrews, 2013]

I Implies enlarging the cell edge


I Increased inter-cell interference

Stefan Schwarz
y Slide 4 / 31 y y Overview of CoMP in LTEy

CoMP Motivation (2)

I Common approaches to improve network capacity


I Increase the amount of available spectrum
e.g., 200 kHz in GSM ⇒ 100 MHz in LTE-A (carrier-aggregation)
I Improve the PHY: AMC, MIMO, OFDM
I Densify the network: small cells (micro/pico/femto)

I Significant bandwidth expansions cannot be expected in the near future


I Possible long-term solution Millimeter Waves
[Rappaport et al., 2013] (30 – 300 GHz ⇔ 1 – 10 mm)

I Potential PHY improvements with massive MIMO [Marzetta, 2010]

I Feasible short-term solution: increasing the network density


I Heterogeneous networks [Andrews, 2013]

I Implies enlarging the cell edge


I Increased inter-cell interference

Stefan Schwarz
y Slide 4 / 31 y y Overview of CoMP in LTEy

CoMP Motivation (2)

I Common approaches to improve network capacity


I Increase the amount of available spectrum
e.g., 200 kHz in GSM ⇒ 100 MHz in LTE-A (carrier-aggregation)
I Improve the PHY: AMC, MIMO, OFDM
I Densify the network: small cells (micro/pico/femto)

I Significant bandwidth expansions cannot be expected in the near future


I Possible long-term solution Millimeter Waves
[Rappaport et al., 2013] (30 – 300 GHz ⇔ 1 – 10 mm)

I Potential PHY improvements with massive MIMO [Marzetta, 2010]

I Feasible short-term solution: increasing the network density


I Heterogeneous networks [Andrews, 2013]

I Implies enlarging the cell edge


I Increased inter-cell interference

Stefan Schwarz
y Slide 5 / 31 y y Overview of CoMP in LTEy

CoMP Principles

I Solution to cell edge problematic: remove the cell edge!

I Definition of CoMP:
I Coordinated transmission/reception of data among several
transmission/reception points to reduce or even exploit interference
I Transmission/reception points:
base stations, relays, access points, remote radio heads, user equipments

I Coordination is not for free: backhaul infrastructure


I High bandwidth, low latency (beyond X2)

I Fiber, dedicated micro-wave links


I Central coordination unit

Stefan Schwarz
y Slide 5 / 31 y y Overview of CoMP in LTEy

CoMP Principles

I Solution to cell edge problematic: remove the cell edge!

I Definition of CoMP:
I Coordinated transmission/reception of data among several
transmission/reception points to reduce or even exploit interference
I Transmission/reception points:
base stations, relays, access points, remote radio heads, user equipments

I Coordination is not for free: backhaul infrastructure


I High bandwidth, low latency (beyond X2)

I Fiber, dedicated micro-wave links


I Central coordination unit

Stefan Schwarz
y Slide 6 / 31 y y Overview of CoMP in LTEy

3GPP Time-Line
2008 2010 2012 2014 2016
Rel 8 NOW
LTE

Rel 9
LTE Enhancements

Rel 10
LTE-A
CoMP

First 3GPP studies in Rel’10:


I 3GPP TR 36.814 - Further advancements for E-UTRA physical layer aspects
I 3GPP TR 36.912 - Feasibility study for further advancements for E-UTRA (LTE-A)

Stefan Schwarz
y Slide 6 / 31 y y Overview of CoMP in LTEy

3GPP Time-Line
2008 2010 2012 2014 2016
Rel 8 NOW
LTE

Rel 9
LTE Enhancements

Rel 10
LTE-A
CoMP
Rel 11
LTE-A Enhancements
CoMP

First 3GPP studies in Rel’10:


I 3GPP TR 36.814 - Further advancements for E-UTRA physical layer aspects
I 3GPP TR 36.912 - Feasibility study for further advancements for E-UTRA (LTE-A)
Introduction of CoMP into the standard in Rel’11:
I 3GPP TR 36.819 - Coordinated multi-point operation for LTE physical layer aspects

Stefan Schwarz
y Slide 6 / 31 y y Overview of CoMP in LTEy

3GPP Time-Line
2008 2010 2012 2014 2016
Rel 8 NOW
LTE

Rel 9
LTE Enhancements

Rel 10
LTE-A
CoMP
Rel 11
LTE-A Enhancements
CoMP
Rel 12
Imperfect Backhaul

First 3GPP studies in Rel’10:


I 3GPP TR 36.814 - Further advancements for E-UTRA physical layer aspects
I 3GPP TR 36.912 - Feasibility study for further advancements for E-UTRA (LTE-A)
Introduction of CoMP into the standard in Rel’11:
I 3GPP TR 36.819 - Coordinated multi-point operation for LTE physical layer aspects
Consideration of non-ideal backhaul in Rel’12 — :
I 3GPP TR 36.874 - Coordinated multi-point operation for LTE with non-ideal backhaul

Stefan Schwarz
y Slide 7 / 31 y y Overview of CoMP in LTEy

Classification of CoMP Concepts


I Coordinated scheduling:
I Time/frequency sharing
I Dynamic point selection
I Inter-cell interference coordination
ICIC (Rel. 8), eICIC (Rel. 10), FeICIC (Rel. 11)
I Advantage: low overhead (control info)

I Coordinated beamforming:
I Spatial interference mitigation
I Signal to leakage and noise ratio (SLNR) Coordinated
scheduling
[Sadek et al., 2007]
I Advantage: good trade-off (CSI only)

I Joint transmission:
I Exploitation of interference
Base station User
I Distributed antenna system (DAS) X2 interface or low-latency high-bandwidth dedicated connection
I Advantage: potentially highest performance
I Disadvantage: overhead (CSI and data)

Stefan Schwarz
y Slide 7 / 31 y y Overview of CoMP in LTEy

Classification of CoMP Concepts


I Coordinated scheduling:
I Time/frequency sharing
I Dynamic point selection
I Inter-cell interference coordination
ICIC (Rel. 8), eICIC (Rel. 10), FeICIC (Rel. 11)
I Advantage: low overhead (control info)

I Coordinated beamforming:
I Spatial interference mitigation
I Signal to leakage and noise ratio (SLNR) Coordinated
scheduling
[Sadek et al., 2007]
I Advantage: good trade-off (CSI only)
Coordinated
beamforming

I Joint transmission:
I Exploitation of interference
Base station User
I Distributed antenna system (DAS) X2 interface or low-latency high-bandwidth dedicated connection
I Advantage: potentially highest performance
I Disadvantage: overhead (CSI and data)

CSI. . . channel state information

Stefan Schwarz
y Slide 7 / 31 y y Overview of CoMP in LTEy

Classification of CoMP Concepts


I Coordinated scheduling:
I Time/frequency sharing
I Dynamic point selection
I Inter-cell interference coordination
Joint
ICIC (Rel. 8), eICIC (Rel. 10), FeICIC (Rel. 11) transmission
I Advantage: low overhead (control info)

I Coordinated beamforming:
I Spatial interference mitigation
I Signal to leakage and noise ratio (SLNR) Coordinated
scheduling
[Sadek et al., 2007]
I Advantage: good trade-off (CSI only)
Coordinated
beamforming

I Joint transmission:
I Exploitation of interference
Base station User
I Distributed antenna system (DAS) X2 interface or low-latency high-bandwidth dedicated connection
I Advantage: potentially highest performance
I Disadvantage: overhead (CSI and data)

CSI. . . channel state information

Stefan Schwarz
y Slide 8 / 31 y y Overview of CoMP in LTEy

CoMP Scenarios considered by the 3GPP

Base station Remote radio unit

Access point User

Low-latency high-bandwidth connection

HetNet. . . heterogeneous network, RRH. . . remote radio head

Stefan Schwarz
y Slide 8 / 31 y y Overview of CoMP in LTEy

CoMP Scenarios considered by the 3GPP

I Scenario 1: Intra-site CoMP

Base station Remote radio unit

Access point User

Low-latency high-bandwidth connection

HetNet. . . heterogeneous network, RRH. . . remote radio head

Stefan Schwarz
y Slide 8 / 31 y y Overview of CoMP in LTEy

CoMP Scenarios considered by the 3GPP

I Scenario 1: Intra-site CoMP


I Scenario 2: Inter-site CoMP

Base station Remote radio unit

Access point User

Low-latency high-bandwidth connection

HetNet. . . heterogeneous network, RRH. . . remote radio head

Stefan Schwarz
y Slide 8 / 31 y y Overview of CoMP in LTEy

CoMP Scenarios considered by the 3GPP

I Scenario 1: Intra-site CoMP


I Scenario 2: Inter-site CoMP
I Scenario 3: HetNet CoMP 1 (different cell-IDs, small cells)

Base station Remote radio unit

Access point User

Low-latency high-bandwidth connection

HetNet. . . heterogeneous network, RRH. . . remote radio head

Stefan Schwarz
y Slide 8 / 31 y y Overview of CoMP in LTEy

CoMP Scenarios considered by the 3GPP

I Scenario 1: Intra-site CoMP


I Scenario 2: Inter-site CoMP
I Scenario 3: HetNet CoMP 1 (different cell-IDs, small cells)
I Scenario 4: HetNet CoMP 2 (same cell-IDs, RRHs and relays)

Base station Remote radio unit

Access point User

Low-latency high-bandwidth connection

HetNet. . . heterogeneous network, RRH. . . remote radio head

Stefan Schwarz
y Slide 9 / 31 y y Overview of CoMP in LTEy

Channel State Information (CSI) Acquisition and Sharing


I Coordinated beamforming and joint transmission require other-cell CSI
I Extended reference signals to support other-cell CSI estimation
I 3GPP defines a measurement set for CSI reporting
I Performance and overhead increase with the size of the measurement set

H2
H1

H3

CSI for H1 H2 H3

Base station User


Low-latency high-bandwidth dedicated connection

Stefan Schwarz
y Slide 10 / 31 y y Multi-User MIMO Transmissiony

Contents

Overview of CoMP in LTE


CoMP Basics
3GPP’s View of CoMP

Multi-User MIMO Transmission


Mathematical System Model
Block-Diagonalization Precoding
Antenna Combining

Application Scenario

Conclusions

Stefan Schwarz
y Slide 11 / 31 y y Multi-User MIMO Transmissiony

Multi-User MIMO Broadcast Channel

Base station Remote radio unit User


Low-latency high-bandwidth connection

Stefan Schwarz
y Slide 11 / 31 y y Multi-User MIMO Transmissiony

Multi-User MIMO Broadcast Channel


Nr
user 1
combining
y1
base station Nt G1
x1
x2 precoding wireless
[F1,F2, ... ,FS] channel H
xS
Nr
user U
user data transmit signal
combining
yU
GU
Base station Remote radio unit User
Low-latency high-bandwidth connection

I Frequency-flat input-output relationship of user u (OFDM)

yu = GH H H H
Fs xs + GH
X
u Hu Fu xu + Gu Hu u zu (1)
s∈S
| {z } | {z }
intended signal s6=u noise
| {z }
interference

channel matrix Hu ∈ CNt ×Nr , linear transceivers Gu ∈ CNr ×L , Fu ∈ CNt ×L


I L . . . streams per user, Nr . . . receive antennas, Nt . . . transmit antennas
I S = |S| . . . users served in parallel
I Interesting case: L ≤ Nr ≤ Nt

Stefan Schwarz
y Slide 12 / 31 y y Multi-User MIMO Transmissiony

Multi-User MIMO Motivation

I Practical situation: Nr  Nt (especially in joint transmission CoMP)

I Single-user MIMO:
I Number of parallel users: S = 1

I Number of spatial streams: L ≤ min (Nr , Nt ) [Telatar, 1999]


I Multiplexing gain of base station cannot be exploited

I Remedy: multi-user MIMO


I Serve multiple users in parallel S ≥ 1 each over L ≤ Nr streams

I Advantage: total number of streams S · L ≤ Nt [Goldsmith et al., 2003]


I Total multiplexing gain not confined by user capabilities

I Questions:
I How to select the users S?

I How to design the transceivers Fu , Gu ?

Stefan Schwarz
y Slide 12 / 31 y y Multi-User MIMO Transmissiony

Multi-User MIMO Motivation

I Practical situation: Nr  Nt (especially in joint transmission CoMP)

I Single-user MIMO:
I Number of parallel users: S = 1

I Number of spatial streams: L ≤ min (Nr , Nt ) [Telatar, 1999]


I Multiplexing gain of base station cannot be exploited

I Remedy: multi-user MIMO


I Serve multiple users in parallel S ≥ 1 each over L ≤ Nr streams

I Advantage: total number of streams S · L ≤ Nt [Goldsmith et al., 2003]


I Total multiplexing gain not confined by user capabilities

I Questions:
I How to select the users S?

I How to design the transceivers Fu , Gu ?

Stefan Schwarz
y Slide 13 / 31 y y Multi-User MIMO Transmissiony

Transceiver Design

I Assume the schedule S to be given

I Nonlinear interference pre-cancellation dirty paper coding [Costa, 1983]


I Suboptimal algorithmic attempts
I Vector-perturbation precoding [Hochwald et al., 2005]

I Tomlinson-Harashima based joint transceiver


design [Mezghani et al., 2006]
I Disadvantage: complexity

I Practically more relevant: linear transceivers


I Linear interference pre-cancellation [Spencer et al., 2004]
I Zero-forcing beamforming

I Block-diagonalization precoding
I Iterative joint optimization, e.g., based on MMSE
criteria [Shi et al., 2008]

Stefan Schwarz
y Slide 13 / 31 y y Multi-User MIMO Transmissiony

Transceiver Design

I Assume the schedule S to be given

I Nonlinear interference pre-cancellation dirty paper coding [Costa, 1983]


I Suboptimal algorithmic attempts
I Vector-perturbation precoding [Hochwald et al., 2005]

I Tomlinson-Harashima based joint transceiver


design [Mezghani et al., 2006]
I Disadvantage: complexity

I Practically more relevant: linear transceivers


I Linear interference pre-cancellation [Spencer et al., 2004]
I Zero-forcing beamforming

I Block-diagonalization precoding
I Iterative joint optimization, e.g., based on MMSE
criteria [Shi et al., 2008]

Stefan Schwarz
y Slide 14 / 31 y y Multi-User MIMO Transmissiony

Considered Transceiver Architecture

I Problem of iterative approaches: large signaling overhead

I We consider non-iterative linear transceiver designs:


I Selfish selection of Gu

I Block-diagonalization precoding at base station


I Selection of S based on achievable rate estimate

I Advantages of this approach:


I Reduced computational complexity (closed-form solutions)

I Decreased signaling overhead when L < Nr

Heff
u = Hu Gu ∈ C
Nt ×L
versus Hu ∈ CNt ×Nr (2)

Stefan Schwarz
y Slide 15 / 31 y y Multi-User MIMO Transmissiony

Block-Diagonalization (BD) Precoding

I Assume for now Gu as given and S = {1, . . . , S}

S
yu = Heff
H
Fu xu + Heff
H X
u u Fs x s + GH
u zu
s=1
s6=u

I Goal of BD precoding: eliminate multi-user interference

Heff
H
s Fu = 0, ∀s, u ∈ S and s 6= u, (3)
 H 
rank Heff
u Fu = L, ∀u ∈ S (4)

I This can be achieved by selecting the precoders as follows ∀u ∈ S

Stefan Schwarz
y Slide 15 / 31 y y Multi-User MIMO Transmissiony

Block-Diagonalization (BD) Precoding

I Assume for now Gu as given and S = {1, . . . , S}

S
yu = Heff
H
Fu xu + Heff
H X
u u Fs x s + GH
u zu
s=1
s6=u

I Goal of BD precoding: eliminate multi-user interference

Heff
H
s Fu = 0, ∀s, u ∈ S and s 6= u, (3)
 H 
rank Heff
u Fu = L, ∀u ∈ S (4)

I This can be achieved by selecting the precoders as follows ∀u ∈ S

h iH
H̄u = Heff eff eff eff
1 , . . . , Hu−1 , Hu+1 , . . . , HS ∈ C(S−1)L×Nt ,

Stefan Schwarz
y Slide 15 / 31 y y Multi-User MIMO Transmissiony

Block-Diagonalization (BD) Precoding

I Assume for now Gu as given and S = {1, . . . , S}

S
yu = Heff
H
Fu xu + Heff
H X
u u Fs x s + GH
u zu
s=1
s6=u

I Goal of BD precoding: eliminate multi-user interference

Heff
H
s Fu = 0, ∀s, u ∈ S and s 6= u, (3)
 H 
rank Heff
u Fu = L, ∀u ∈ S (4)

I This can be achieved by selecting the precoders as follows ∀u ∈ S

Fu ∈ null H̄u ,
iH 
h (5)
H̄u = Heff eff eff eff
1 , . . . , Hu−1 , Hu+1 , . . . , HS ∈ C(S−1)L×Nt ,
rank (Fu ) = L (6)

Stefan Schwarz
y Slide 16 / 31 y y Multi-User MIMO Transmissiony

Block-Diagonalization (BD) Precoding (2)

I Feasibility condition for BD precoding

rank (Fu ) = L ⇒ rank null H̄u = max (0, Nt − (S − 1)L) = L




Nt
⇒ Nt − (S − 1)L = L ⇒ S = (7)
L

I A solution can be determined from a singular-value decomposition of H̄u

I Special case: zero-forcing beamforming L = 1

yu = heff
H
fu xu + heff
H X
u u fs xs + gH
u zu (8)
s

I Closed form solution


−1
F = [f1 , . . . , fS ] = HH HHH , (9)
h iH
eff eff S×Nt
H = h1 , . . . , hS ∈C (10)

Stefan Schwarz
y Slide 16 / 31 y y Multi-User MIMO Transmissiony

Block-Diagonalization (BD) Precoding (2)

I Feasibility condition for BD precoding

rank (Fu ) = L ⇒ rank null H̄u = max (0, Nt − (S − 1)L) = L




Nt
⇒ Nt − (S − 1)L = L ⇒ S = (7)
L

I A solution can be determined from a singular-value decomposition of H̄u

I Special case: zero-forcing beamforming L = 1

yu = heff
H
fu xu + heff
H X
u u fs xs + gH
u zu (8)
s

I Closed form solution


−1
F = [f1 , . . . , fS ] = HH HHH , (9)
h iH
eff eff S×Nt
H = h1 , . . . , hS ∈C (10)

Stefan Schwarz
y Slide 17 / 31 y y Multi-User MIMO Transmissiony

Illustration of Zero-Forcing Beamforming

z I Zero interference conditions:


h1
hH H !
2 f1 = h3 f1 = 0

h3 I Intended signal power:


2
P1 = hH

1 f1

y
I ⇒ Orthogonal user selection
x h2  
P
RZF ∝ Nt log 1 + log U ∝ RDPC
Nt
y1 = hH H H
1 f1 x1 +h1 f2 x2 + h1 f3 x3
y2 = hH H H
2 f1 x1 +h2 f2 x2 + h2 f3 x3
[Yoo and Goldsmith, 2006,
Boccardi and Huang, 2007]
y3 = hH H
3 f1 x1 +h3 f2 x2 + hH
3 f3 x3

Stefan Schwarz
y Slide 17 / 31 y y Multi-User MIMO Transmissiony

Illustration of Zero-Forcing Beamforming

z I Zero interference conditions:


h1
hH H !
2 f1 = h3 f1 = 0

h3 I Intended signal power:


2
P1 = hH

1 f1

y
I ⇒ Orthogonal user selection
x h2  
P
RZF ∝ Nt log 1 + log U ∝ RDPC
Nt
y1 = hH H H
1 f1 x1 +h1 f2 x2 + h1 f3 x3
y2 = hH H H
2 f1 x1 +h2 f2 x2 + h2 f3 x3
[Yoo and Goldsmith, 2006,
Boccardi and Huang, 2007]
y3 = hH H
3 f1 x1 +h3 f2 x2 + hH
3 f3 x3

Stefan Schwarz
y Slide 17 / 31 y y Multi-User MIMO Transmissiony

Illustration of Zero-Forcing Beamforming

z I Zero interference conditions:


h1
hH H !
2 f1 = h3 f1 = 0

h3 I Intended signal power:


2
P1 = hH

1 f1

y
I ⇒ Orthogonal user selection
x h2  
P
RZF ∝ Nt log 1 + log U ∝ RDPC
Nt
y1 = hH H H
1 f1 x1 +h1 f2 x2 + h1 f3 x3
y2 = hH H H
2 f1 x1 +h2 f2 x2 + h2 f3 x3
[Yoo and Goldsmith, 2006,
Boccardi and Huang, 2007]
y3 = hH H
3 f1 x1 +h3 f2 x2 + hH
3 f3 x3

Stefan Schwarz
y Slide 17 / 31 y y Multi-User MIMO Transmissiony

Illustration of Zero-Forcing Beamforming

z I Zero interference conditions:


h1
hH H !
2 f1 = h3 f1 = 0

f1
h3 I Intended signal power:
2
P1 = hH

1 f1

y
I ⇒ Orthogonal user selection
x h2  
P
RZF ∝ Nt log 1 + log U ∝ RDPC
Nt
y1 = hH H H
1 f1 x1 +h1 f2 x2 + h1 f3 x3
y2 = hH H H
2 f1 x1 +h2 f2 x2 + h2 f3 x3
[Yoo and Goldsmith, 2006,
Boccardi and Huang, 2007]
y3 = hH H
3 f1 x1 +h3 f2 x2 + hH
3 f3 x3

Stefan Schwarz
y Slide 17 / 31 y y Multi-User MIMO Transmissiony

Illustration of Zero-Forcing Beamforming

z I Zero interference conditions:


h1
hH H !
2 f1 = h3 f1 = 0

f1
h3 I Intended signal power:
2
P1 = hH

1 f1

y
I ⇒ Orthogonal user selection
x h2  
P
RZF ∝ Nt log 1 + log U ∝ RDPC
Nt
y1 = hH H H
1 f1 x1 +h1 f2 x2 + h1 f3 x3
y2 = hH H H
2 f1 x1 +h2 f2 x2 + h2 f3 x3
[Yoo and Goldsmith, 2006,
Boccardi and Huang, 2007]
y3 = hH H
3 f1 x1 +h3 f2 x2 + hH
3 f3 x3

Stefan Schwarz
y Slide 17 / 31 y y Multi-User MIMO Transmissiony

Illustration of Zero-Forcing Beamforming

z I Zero interference conditions:


h1
hH H !
2 f1 = h3 f1 = 0

f1
h3 I Intended signal power:
2
P1 = hH

1 f1

y
I ⇒ Orthogonal user selection
x h2  
P
RZF ∝ Nt log 1 + log U ∝ RDPC
Nt
y1 = hH H H
1 f1 x1 +h1 f2 x2 + h1 f3 x3
y2 = hH H H
2 f1 x1 +h2 f2 x2 + h2 f3 x3
[Yoo and Goldsmith, 2006,
Boccardi and Huang, 2007]
y3 = hH H
3 f1 x1 +h3 f2 x2 + hH
3 f3 x3

Stefan Schwarz
y Slide 18 / 31 y y Multi-User MIMO Transmissiony

Channel State Information (CSI) Feedback

I Remember, the BD precoders are obtained by the base station from

h iH
Fu ∈ null H̄u , H̄u = Heff eff eff eff

1 , . . . , Hu−1 , Hu+1 , . . . , HS

I What channel state information does the base station need, i.e., what
feedback information do the users have to provide?

I Notice, Heff can be replaced with any matrix spanning the same subspace
j

   
Heff
j ≡ H̃j ∈ C
Nt ×L
⇔ span Heff
j = span H̃j , (11)

Heff
H
j Fu = 0 ⇔ H̃H
j Fu = 0 (12)

 
⇒ the users have to convey span Heff
j
to the base station

I This subspace is a point on the Grassmann manifold of L dimensional


subspaces in the Nt dimensional complex Euclidean space

Stefan Schwarz
y Slide 18 / 31 y y Multi-User MIMO Transmissiony

Channel State Information (CSI) Feedback

I Remember, the BD precoders are obtained by the base station from

h iH
Fu ∈ null H̄u , H̄u = Heff eff eff eff

1 , . . . , Hu−1 , Hu+1 , . . . , HS

I What channel state information does the base station need, i.e., what
feedback information do the users have to provide?

I Notice, Heff can be replaced with any matrix spanning the same subspace
j

   
Heff
j ≡ H̃j ∈ C
Nt ×L
⇔ span Heff
j = span H̃j , (11)

Heff
H
j Fu = 0 ⇔ H̃H
j Fu = 0 (12)

 
⇒ the users have to convey span Heff
j
to the base station

I This subspace is a point on the Grassmann manifold of L dimensional


subspaces in the Nt dimensional complex Euclidean space

Stefan Schwarz
y Slide 19 / 31 y y Multi-User MIMO Transmissiony

Channel State Information (CSI) Feedback (2)


 
I Feedback channel with limited capacity ⇒ span Heff must be quantized
j
⇒ Grassmannian quantization [Love and Heath, Jr., 2005]
I The subspace is represented with an orthonormal basis H̃j ∈ CNt ×L

   
span Heff
j = span H̃j , H̃H
j H̃j = IL (13)

I For quantization a codebook is employed (b bits of feedback)1


n o
Qi ∈ CNt ×L QH b

Q= i Qi = IL , i ∈ {1, . . . , 2 } (14)

I The quantized subspace is obtained from


   
Ĥj = argmin d2c Heff H H
j , Qi = argmin L − tr H̃j Qi Qi H̃j (15)
Qi ∈Q Qi ∈Q

I d2c (·, ·) subspace chordal distance

1
[Ravindran and Jindal, 2008, Schwarz et al., 2013a, Schwarz et al., 2013b]
Stefan Schwarz
y Slide 19 / 31 y y Multi-User MIMO Transmissiony

Channel State Information (CSI) Feedback (2)


 
I Feedback channel with limited capacity ⇒ span Heff must be quantized
j
⇒ Grassmannian quantization [Love and Heath, Jr., 2005]
I The subspace is represented with an orthonormal basis H̃j ∈ CNt ×L

   
span Heff
j = span H̃j , H̃H
j H̃j = IL (13)

I For quantization a codebook is employed (b bits of feedback)1


n o
Qi ∈ CNt ×L QH b

Q= i Qi = IL , i ∈ {1, . . . , 2 } (14)

I The quantized subspace is obtained from


   
Ĥj = argmin d2c Heff H H
j , Qi = argmin L − tr H̃j Qi Qi H̃j (15)
Qi ∈Q Qi ∈Q

I d2c (·, ·) subspace chordal distance

1
[Ravindran and Jindal, 2008, Schwarz et al., 2013a, Schwarz et al., 2013b]
Stefan Schwarz
y Slide 20 / 31 y y Multi-User MIMO Transmissiony

Multi-User MIMO versus Single-User MIMO


4UE_10Hz_8x2_2streams
35
Perfect CSI
30
ACSQ 11 bit

Sum throughput [Mbit/s]


25
ACSQ 9 bit
20
ACSQ 7 bit
15
SU-MIMO 8 bit
10
ACSQ 5 bit RCSQ 11bit
5

0
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30
SNR [dB]

I LTE compliant system with Nt = 8, Nr = 2 and U = 4 users


I Low user mobility: 5 km/h @ 2 GHz center frequency
I Multi-user MIMO: S = 4 user spatially multiplexed with L = 2 streams each
I Single-user MIMO: S = 1 user selected with L = 2 streams

RCSQ. . . random channel subspace quantization [Ravindran and Jindal, 2008]


ACSQ. . . adaptive channel subspace quantization [Schwarz et al., 2013b]

Stefan Schwarz
y Slide 21 / 31 y y Multi-User MIMO Transmissiony

Maximum eigenmode transmission (MET)

Hu = Uu Σu VH
(MET)
u ⇒ Gu = Vu (:, 1 : L), (16)
Heff = Uu (:, 1 : L) diag σ1,u , . . . , σL,u

u (17)

Select L maximum eigenmodes out of Nr

Theorem (MET)
S users are served with L spatial streams each over i.i.d. Rayleigh fading channels,
using b bits to quantize and feedback the channel state information.

L  
(`)
X
RMET − RMET-Quant ≤ log2 1 + ρ cMET DMET , (18)
`=1
− L(N b−L) P
DMET ∝ 2 t , ρ= , ρdB = 10 log10 (ρ) (19)
σz2 S L

∂b
MET feedback bit-scaling for constant rate offset: ∝ L (Nt − L) (20)
∂ρdB

[Schwarz and Rupp, 2013b]


Stefan Schwarz
y Slide 21 / 31 y y Multi-User MIMO Transmissiony

Maximum eigenmode transmission (MET)

Hu = Uu Σu VH
(MET)
u ⇒ Gu = Vu (:, 1 : L), (16)
Heff = Uu (:, 1 : L) diag σ1,u , . . . , σL,u

u (17)

Select L maximum eigenmodes out of Nr

Theorem (MET)
S users are served with L spatial streams each over i.i.d. Rayleigh fading channels,
using b bits to quantize and feedback the channel state information.

L  
(`)
X
RMET − RMET-Quant ≤ log2 1 + ρ cMET DMET , (18)
`=1
− L(N b−L) P
DMET ∝ 2 t , ρ= , ρdB = 10 log10 (ρ) (19)
σz2 S L

∂b
MET feedback bit-scaling for constant rate offset: ∝ L (Nt − L) (20)
∂ρdB

[Schwarz and Rupp, 2013b]


Stefan Schwarz
y Slide 22 / 31 y y Multi-User MIMO Transmissiony

Subspace quantization based combining (SQBC)

n o  
= argmin d2c Heff 2
(SQBC) (SQBC)
u , Qj = argmin dc Hu G, Qj

Gu , Ĥu (21)
G,Qj ∈Qu G,Qj ∈Qu

I Solution for G(SQBC)


u available in closed form
I Minimize the subspace quantization error

Theorem (SQBC)
S users are served with L spatial streams each over i.i.d. Rayleigh fading channels,
using b bits to quantize and feedback the channel state information.

b
− L(N −N
(L) (L,N ) (L,N )
r
RBD − RSQBC ≤ L log2 (1 + ρ cSQBC DSQBC ) + dSQBCr , DSQBC ∝ 2 t r) (22)

∂b  
SQBC feedback bit-scaling: ∝ L (Nt − Nr ), MET: L (Nt − L) (23)
∂ρdB

[Schwarz and Rupp, 2013a, Schwarz and Rupp, 2013b]


Stefan Schwarz
y Slide 22 / 31 y y Multi-User MIMO Transmissiony

Subspace quantization based combining (SQBC)

n o  
= argmin d2c Heff 2
(SQBC) (SQBC)
u , Qj = argmin dc Hu G, Qj

Gu , Ĥu (21)
G,Qj ∈Qu G,Qj ∈Qu

I Solution for G(SQBC)


u available in closed form
I Minimize the subspace quantization error

Theorem (SQBC)
S users are served with L spatial streams each over i.i.d. Rayleigh fading channels,
using b bits to quantize and feedback the channel state information.

b
− L(N −N
(L) (L,N ) (L,N )
r
RBD − RSQBC ≤ L log2 (1 + ρ cSQBC DSQBC ) + dSQBCr , DSQBC ∝ 2 t r) (22)

∂b  
SQBC feedback bit-scaling: ∝ L (Nt − Nr ), MET: L (Nt − L) (23)
∂ρdB

[Schwarz and Rupp, 2013a, Schwarz and Rupp, 2013b]


Stefan Schwarz
y Slide 23 / 31 y y Multi-User MIMO Transmissiony

MET versus SQBC


95% confidence interval 6xN_flat_2_streams
50
MET
45 Nr = 2
SQBC
Achievable sum rate [bits/s/Hz]

40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30
SNR [dB]
Achievable rate with perfect CSIT

I Nt = 6 transmit antennas, Nr ∈ {2, . . . , 5} receive antennas, L = 2 data streams


I Throughput loss of SQBC with perfect CSI at the base station

Stefan Schwarz
y Slide 23 / 31 y y Multi-User MIMO Transmissiony

MET versus SQBC


95% confidence interval 6xN_flat_2_streams
50
Nr = 3
MET
45 Nr = 2
SQBC
Nr = 3
Achievable sum rate [bits/s/Hz]

40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30
SNR [dB]
Achievable rate with perfect CSIT

I Nt = 6 transmit antennas, Nr ∈ {2, . . . , 5} receive antennas, L = 2 data streams


I Throughput loss of SQBC with perfect CSI at the base station

Stefan Schwarz
y Slide 23 / 31 y y Multi-User MIMO Transmissiony

MET versus SQBC

50
95% confidence interval 6xN_flat_2_streams
Nr = 4
MET
45 Nr = 2
SQBC
Achievable sum rate [bits/s/Hz]

40 Nr = 4
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30
SNR [dB]
Achievable rate with perfect CSIT

I Nt = 6 transmit antennas, Nr ∈ {2, . . . , 5} receive antennas, L = 2 data streams


I Throughput loss of SQBC with perfect CSI at the base station

Stefan Schwarz
y Slide 23 / 31 y y Multi-User MIMO Transmissiony

MET versus SQBC


95% confidence interval 6xN_flat_2_streams Nr = 5
50
MET
45 Nr = 2
SQBC
Achievable sum rate [bits/s/Hz]

40
Nr = 5
35
30
(L,Nr)
25 dSQBC
20
15
10
5
0
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30
SNR [dB]
Achievable rate with perfect CSIT

I Nt = 6 transmit antennas, Nr ∈ {2, . . . , 5} receive antennas, L = 2 data streams


I Throughput loss of SQBC with perfect CSI at the base station

Stefan Schwarz
y Slide 23 / 31 y y Multi-User MIMO Transmissiony

MET versus SQBC


95% confidence interval 6xN_flat_2_streams Nr = 5 6xN_flat_2_streams
50 90
MET MET Nr = 2
45 Nr = 2 80
SQBC SQBC

Sufficient number of feedback bits


Achievable sum rate [bits/s/Hz]

40 70
Nr = 5
35
60
30
(L,Nr)
50
25 dSQBC
40
20
30
15
10 20

5 10

0 0
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
SNR [dB] SNR [dB]
Achievable rate with perfect CSIT Feedback bit-scaling to achieve a loss of 1 bit/s/Hz

I Nt = 6 transmit antennas, Nr ∈ {2, . . . , 5} receive antennas, L = 2 data streams


I Throughput loss of SQBC with perfect CSI at the base station
I Feedback overhead for 1 bit/s/Hz rate loss with random vector quantization
I Significant reduction of feedback overhead with SQBC for moderate SNR loss

Stefan Schwarz
y Slide 23 / 31 y y Multi-User MIMO Transmissiony

MET versus SQBC


95% confidence interval 6xN_flat_2_streams Nr = 5
50 90
6xN_flat_2_streams
Nr = 3
MET MET Nr = 2
45 Nr = 2 80
SQBC SQBC

Sufficient number of feedback bits


Achievable sum rate [bits/s/Hz]

40 70
Nr = 5
35
60 Nr = 3
30
(L,Nr)
50
25 dSQBC
40
20
30
15
10 20

5 10

0 0
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
SNR [dB] SNR [dB]
Achievable rate with perfect CSIT Feedback bit-scaling to achieve a loss of 1 bit/s/Hz

I Nt = 6 transmit antennas, Nr ∈ {2, . . . , 5} receive antennas, L = 2 data streams


I Throughput loss of SQBC with perfect CSI at the base station
I Feedback overhead for 1 bit/s/Hz rate loss with random vector quantization
I Significant reduction of feedback overhead with SQBC for moderate SNR loss

Stefan Schwarz
y Slide 23 / 31 y y Multi-User MIMO Transmissiony

MET versus SQBC


Nr = 5
95% confidence interval 6xN_flat_2_streams Nr = 5 6xN_flat_2_streams
50 90
MET MET L (Nt-L) Nr = 2
45 Nr = 2 80
SQBC SQBC

Sufficient number of feedback bits


Achievable sum rate [bits/s/Hz]

40 70
Nr = 5
35
60
30
(L,Nr)
50
25 dSQBC
40
20
30 L (Nt-Nr)
15
10 20
Nr = 5
5 10

0 0
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
SNR [dB] SNR [dB]
Achievable rate with perfect CSIT Feedback bit-scaling to achieve a loss of 1 bit/s/Hz

I Nt = 6 transmit antennas, Nr ∈ {2, . . . , 5} receive antennas, L = 2 data streams


I Throughput loss of SQBC with perfect CSI at the base station
I Feedback overhead for 1 bit/s/Hz rate loss with random vector quantization
I Significant reduction of feedback overhead with SQBC for moderate SNR loss

Stefan Schwarz
y Slide 24 / 31 y y Multi-User MIMO Transmissiony

SQBC versus MET (2)


I Nt = 6 transmit antennas, Nr ∈ {2, 4, 5} receive antennas, L = 2 streams
I Comparison of performance with perfect and quantized CSIT
I Feedback overhead scaled for constant rate loss with Nr = 5: b ∈ [0, 17] bits.

95% confidence interval 6xN_flat_2_streams


45
SQBC perfect CSIT
40 SQBC quant. CSIT
Nr = 5
Achievable sum rate [bits/s/Hz]

35

30

25

20

15

10

0
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30
SNR [dB]

CSIT. . . channel state information at the transmitter


Stefan Schwarz
y Slide 24 / 31 y y Multi-User MIMO Transmissiony

SQBC versus MET (2)


I Nt = 6 transmit antennas, Nr ∈ {2, 4, 5} receive antennas, L = 2 streams
I Comparison of performance with perfect and quantized CSIT
I Feedback overhead scaled for constant rate loss with Nr = 5: b ∈ [0, 17] bits.

95% confidence interval 6xN_flat_2_streams


45
SQBC perfect CSIT
40 SQBC quant. CSIT Nr = 4
Nr = 5
Achievable sum rate [bits/s/Hz]

35

30
Nr = 4
25

20

15

10

0
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30
SNR [dB]

CSIT. . . channel state information at the transmitter


Stefan Schwarz
y Slide 24 / 31 y y Multi-User MIMO Transmissiony

SQBC versus MET (2)


I Nt = 6 transmit antennas, Nr ∈ {2, 4, 5} receive antennas, L = 2 streams
I Comparison of performance with perfect and quantized CSIT
I Feedback overhead scaled for constant rate loss with Nr = 5: b ∈ [0, 17] bits.

95% confidence interval 6xN_flat_2_streams


45 Nr = 2
SQBC perfect CSIT
40 SQBC quant. CSIT Nr = 4
Nr = 5
Achievable sum rate [bits/s/Hz]

35

30
Nr = 4
25

20

15
Nr = 2
10

0
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30
SNR [dB]

CSIT. . . channel state information at the transmitter


Stefan Schwarz
y Slide 24 / 31 y y Multi-User MIMO Transmissiony

SQBC versus MET (2)


I Nt = 6 transmit antennas, Nr ∈ {2, 4, 5} receive antennas, L = 2 streams
I Comparison of performance with perfect and quantized CSIT
I Feedback overhead scaled for constant rate loss with Nr = 5: b ∈ [0, 17] bits.

95% confidence interval 6xN_flat_2_streams


45 Nr = 2
SQBC perfect CSIT
40 SQBC quant. CSIT Nr = 4
MET quant. CSIT Nr = 5 Nr = 5
Achievable sum rate [bits/s/Hz]

35

30
Nr = 4
25

20

15
Nr = 2
10

0
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30
SNR [dB]

CSIT. . . channel state information at the transmitter


Stefan Schwarz
y Slide 25 / 31 y y Application Scenarioy

Contents

Overview of CoMP in LTE


CoMP Basics
3GPP’s View of CoMP

Multi-User MIMO Transmission


Mathematical System Model
Block-Diagonalization Precoding
Antenna Combining

Application Scenario

Conclusions

Stefan Schwarz
y Slide 26 / 31 y y Application Scenarioy

Evaluated cellular networking architectures

Base station Remote radio unit User Low-latency high-bandwidth dedicated connection

Macro only network:


I 120◦ sectorized antennas, Nt = 8 transmit antennas per sector
I Hexagonal grid (2 tiers of interferers)
Macro-micro overlay network:
I Nt = 4 macro antennas per sector + two micros with Nt = 2 antennas each
I Independent operation of macros and micros
Macro network with remote radio units (RRUs):
I Twos RRUs per sector with Nt = 2 omnidirectional antennas each
I Joint transmission CoMP between macros and RRUs
Same total transmit power and same number of antennas in all networks
Stefan Schwarz
y Slide 26 / 31 y y Application Scenarioy

Evaluated cellular networking architectures

Base station Remote radio unit User Low-latency high-bandwidth dedicated connection

Macro only network:


I 120◦ sectorized antennas, Nt = 8 transmit antennas per sector
I Hexagonal grid (2 tiers of interferers)
Macro-micro overlay network:
I Nt = 4 macro antennas per sector + two micros with Nt = 2 antennas each
I Independent operation of macros and micros
Macro network with remote radio units (RRUs):
I Twos RRUs per sector with Nt = 2 omnidirectional antennas each
I Joint transmission CoMP between macros and RRUs
Same total transmit power and same number of antennas in all networks
Stefan Schwarz
y Slide 26 / 31 y y Application Scenarioy

Evaluated cellular networking architectures

Base station Remote radio unit User Low-latency high-bandwidth dedicated connection

Macro only network:


I 120◦ sectorized antennas, Nt = 8 transmit antennas per sector
I Hexagonal grid (2 tiers of interferers)
Macro-micro overlay network:
I Nt = 4 macro antennas per sector + two micros with Nt = 2 antennas each
I Independent operation of macros and micros
Macro network with remote radio units (RRUs):
I Twos RRUs per sector with Nt = 2 omnidirectional antennas each
I Joint transmission CoMP between macros and RRUs
Same total transmit power and same number of antennas in all networks
Stefan Schwarz
y Slide 27 / 31 y y Application Scenarioy

Macro Network versus Macro-Micro Overlay Network

95% confidence interval 8x2_PedA_1.4MHz_8bit_1stream 95% confidence interval 8x2_PedA_1.4MHz_8bit_1stream


30 30
27 27
Area spectral efficiency [bit/s/Hz/km2]

Area spectral efficiency [bit/s/Hz/km2]


24 perfect CSIT 24 perfect CSIT
predictive quant. predictive quant.
21 21
18 18
15 15 memoryless quant.
12 12
9 9
6 memoryless quant. 6
3 3
0 0
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32
Number of users per sector Number of users per sector

I Low mobility scenario (5 km/h), 8 bit of feedback for CSI quantization


I Similar performance with accurate CSIT
I Significant gain with micros and memoryless quantization (macro diversity)
I Reasons for the observed behavior:
I No isolation between macro and micro layers (e.g., wall loss)
I Same total transmit power and total number of transmit antennas

Stefan Schwarz
y Slide 28 / 31 y y Application Scenarioy

Macro-only Network versus Macro with RRUs

95% confidence interval 8x2_PedA_1.4MHz_8bit_1stream 95% confidence interval 8x2_PedA_1.4MHz_8bit_1stream


30 30
perfect CSIT
27 27
Area spectral efficiency [bit/s/Hz/km2]

Area spectral efficiency [bit/s/Hz/km2]


24 perfect CSIT 24 predictive quant.

21 predictive quant. 21
18 18
memoryless quant.
15 15
12 12
9 9
6 memoryless quant. 6
3 3
0 0
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32
Number of users per sector Number of users per sector

I Performance improvement with remote radio units:


I Perfect CSIT and predicitve quantization: ∼ 30 − 40%
I Memoryless quantization: ∼ 100%

I Reduced degradation with memoryless quantization (macro-diversity exploited)

Stefan Schwarz
y Slide 29 / 31 y y Application Scenarioy

Performance Comparison - Impact of Feedback Overhead


Macro/Micro
95% confidence interval 8x2_PedA_1.4MHz_8bit_8UE
18
Macro/micro
Area spectral efficiency [bit/s/Hz/km2]

15

12

6
Macro only
3 predictive quant.
memoryless quant.
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Number of feedback bits per user

I Improvement with micro base stations @ low quantization accuracy


I Macro network falls back to single-user MIMO
I Spatial reuse with micros — multiplexing of several users within the same area

Stefan Schwarz
y Slide 29 / 31 y y Application Scenarioy

Performance Comparison - Impact of Feedback Overhead


Macro/Micro Macro/RRUs
95% confidence interval 8x2_PedA_1.4MHz_8bit_8UE 95% confidence interval 8x2_PedA_1.4MHz_8bit_8UE
18 24
Macro/micro
Area spectral efficiency [bit/s/Hz/km2]

Area spectral efficiency [bit/s/Hz/km2]


21
15 Macro/RRUs
18
12
15

9 12

9
6
Macro only 6
3 predictive quant. Macro only
3 predictive quant.
memoryless quant. memoryless quant.
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
Number of feedback bits per user Number of feedback bits per user

I Improvement with micro base stations @ low quantization accuracy


I Macro network falls back to single-user MIMO
I Spatial reuse with micros — multiplexing of several users within the same area

I Performance with remote radio units always better


I Additional macro-diversity
I Gain of joint transmission CoMP

Stefan Schwarz
y Slide 30 / 31 y y Conclusionsy

Contents

Overview of CoMP in LTE


CoMP Basics
3GPP’s View of CoMP

Multi-User MIMO Transmission


Mathematical System Model
Block-Diagonalization Precoding
Antenna Combining

Application Scenario

Conclusions

Stefan Schwarz
y Slide 31 / 31 y y Conclusionsy

Summary and Conclusions

I Facing the expected capacity crunch: network densification

I This implies increased inter-cell interference

I Solution: coordination of transmissions (CoMP)


I Scheduling, beamforming, joint transmission

I Multi-user MIMO transmission (joint transmission)


I Dirty paper coding (nonlinear, highly complex)

I More practical: linear transceivers

I Block-Diagonalization precoding with selfish antenna combining

Stefan Schwarz
y Slide 31 / 31 y y Conclusionsy

Summary and Conclusions

I Facing the expected capacity crunch: network densification

I This implies increased inter-cell interference

I Solution: coordination of transmissions (CoMP)


I Scheduling, beamforming, joint transmission

I Multi-user MIMO transmission (joint transmission)


I Dirty paper coding (nonlinear, highly complex)

I More practical: linear transceivers

I Block-Diagonalization precoding with selfish antenna combining

Stefan Schwarz
Coordinated Multi-Point (CoMP) in LTE
Wireless Communications Seminar

Stefan Schwarz
sschwarz@nt.tuwien.ac.at
March 27, 2014

institute of
telecommunications
y Slide 33 / 31 y y Referencesy

References I
Andrews, J. (2013).
Seven ways that HetNets are a cellular paradigm shift.
IEEE Communications Magazine, 51(3):136–144.

Boccardi, F. and Huang, H. (2007).


A near-optimum technique using linear precoding for the MIMO broadcast channel.
In IEEE Int. Conf. on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, volume 3.

Cisco Systems Inc. (2013).


Cisco visual networking index: forecast update, 2012-2017.
white paper.

Costa, M. (1983).
Writing on dirty paper (corresp.).
IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 29(3):439 – 441.

Ericsson (2013a).
Ericsson mobility report.
white paper.

Ericsson (2013b).
Traffic exploration tool.
http://www.ericsson.com/TET.
[Online; accessed 03-July-2013].

Goldsmith, A., Jafar, S., Jindal, N., and Vishwanath, S. (2003).


Capacity limits of MIMO channels.
IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, 21(5):684–702.

Stefan Schwarz
y Slide 34 / 31 y y Referencesy

References II

Hochwald, B., Peel, C., and Swindlehurst, A. (2005).


A vector-perturbation technique for near-capacity multiantenna multiuser communication-part II:
perturbation.
IEEE Transactions on Communications, 53(3):537–544.

Love, D. and Heath, Jr., R. (2005).


Limited feedback unitary precoding for spatial multiplexing systems.
IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, 51(8):2967–2976.

Marzetta, T. (2010).
Noncooperative cellular wireless with unlimited numbers of base station antennas.
IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, 9(11):3590–3600.

Mezghani, A., Hunger, R., Joham, M., and Utschick, W. (2006).


Iterative THP transceiver optimization for multi-user MIMOsystems based on weighted sum-MSE
minimization.
In IEEE 7th Workshop on Signal Processing Advances in Wireless Communications, pages 1–5.

Rappaport, T., Sun, S., Mayzus, R., Zhao, H., Azar, Y., Wang, K., Wong, G., Schulz, J., Samimi, M., and
Gutierrez, F. (2013).
Millimeter wave mobile communications for 5G cellular: It will work!
IEEE Access, 1:335–349.

Ravindran, N. and Jindal, N. (2008).


Limited feedback-based block diagonalization for the MIMO broadcast channel.
IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, 26(8):1473 –1482.

Stefan Schwarz
y Slide 35 / 31 y y Referencesy

References III
Sadek, M., Tarighat, A., and Sayed, A. (2007).
A leakage-based precoding scheme for downlink multi-user MIMO channels.
IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, 6(5):1711–1721.

Schwarz, S., Heath, Jr., R., and Rupp, M. (2013a).


Adaptive quantization on a Grassmann-manifold for limited feedback beamforming systems.
IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, 61(18):4450–4462.

Schwarz, S., Heath, Jr., R., and Rupp, M. (2013b).


Adaptive quantization on the Grassmann-manifold for limited feedback multi-user MIMO systems.
In 38th International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing, Vancouver, Canada.

Schwarz, S. and Rupp, M. (2013a).


Antenna combiners for block-diagonalization based multi-user MIMO with limited feedback.
In IEEE International Conf. on Communications, WS: Beyond LTE-A, Budapest.

Schwarz, S. and Rupp, M. (2013b).


Subspace quantization based combining for limited feedback block-diagonalization.
IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, 12(11):5868–5879.

Shi, S., Schubert, M., and Boche, H. (2008).


Downlink MMSE transceiver optimization for multiuser MIMO systems: MMSE balancing.
IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, 56(8):3702–3712.

Spencer, Q., Swindlehurst, A., and Haardt, M. (2004).


Zero-forcing methods for downlink spatial multiplexing in multiuser MIMO channels.
IEEE Trans. on Signal Processing, 52(2):461 – 471.

Stefan Schwarz
y Slide 36 / 31 y y Referencesy

References IV

Telatar, I. (1999).
Capacity of multi-antenna Gaussian channels.
European Transactions on Telecommunications, 10(6).

UMTS Forum (2011).


Mobile traffic forecasts 2010 - 2020 report.
UMTS Forum Report 44.

Yoo, T. and Goldsmith, A. (2006).


On the optimality of multiantenna broadcast scheduling using zero-forcing beamforming.
IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, 24(3):528–541.

Stefan Schwarz