1

Adaptive Analog Beamforming

Name And ID: Syed Khalid Hussain (ID:260621774)

E-mail ID : syed.hussain3@mail.mcgill.ca

Date : 05-03-2017

I. INTRODUCTION
Array processing is the study of extraction of in-
formation from signals, collected using an array of
sensors in an interference environment (e.g. on the
ground, above the ground or under the water). In
order to extract useful information, which can be
either the content of the signal itself, i.e., Beamform-
ing or the location of the source or reflection that
produces the signal, i.e. Direction of Arrival (DOA),
the sensor array data must be processed. Both DOA
estimation and beamforming are two major areas of
array processing. DOA estimator has to be high-
resolution accurate estimate of the source angle of
arrival and beamformer has to detect and estimate the
required signal of interest in the presence of noise
and interference. Array processing has found wide-
range of applications in radar, sonar, seismology,
biomedicine, communication, astronomy and imag-
ing. Each of these individual field contains a wealth
of research into the various method of array process-
ing. Generally, the type of processing is dictated by
the particular application but the underlying set of
principals and techniques are common to a diverse
set of applications. Most of the existing methods
of array processing subject to severe performance
degradation in actual practice because of the viola-
tions of underlying assumptions on the environment,
sensor array or noise, that is methods are highly
sensitive to the assumptions of signal model and
antenna array parameters.
Beamforming can be classified into two types
based on the signal to be processed, i.e. digital or
analog. Digital beamforming, otherwise known as
multi-port beamforming as shown in Fig. 1 allows
direct access of received signals to the beamformer
by using a full down-converting receiver as well
as an ADC at each antenna element. Thus, the
received signal vector is available and hence adaptive
algorithm can be used. But the price paid is increase
in circuit scale, number of RF channels and power
consumption with the increase in array elements.
In contrast to multi-port beamforming, weights are
applied on analog signals using analog components
such as phase shifters and amplifiers/attenuators in
single-port beamforming, also known as Analog
beamforming as shown in Fig. 2. The beamforming
structure of single-port is economical as only one
ADC and down-converting receiver is required,
but the price paid is signals on all the elements
2
in the array are not accessible, thus inhibiting the
use of highly precise and fast digital beamforming
algorithms which require accurate knowledge of
auto-correlation matrix and restrict the designer’s
choice to the perturbation based algorithms. Thus
single-port structure becomes an alternative option
for consumer devices where minimization of cost,
power consumption and size are essential design
criteria.
In this report, we analyze the efficiency and
suitability of analog beamforming algorithms.
Two algorithms and their variations are investigated,
one is perturbation based algorithm proposed in
[1] along with its analysis in [2] and the other
is DMR based algorithm proposed in [3]. In [1],
the weight perturbation algorithm is based on the
constrained Least-Mean-Square (CLMS) where the
optimal MVDR beamformer weights are updated
by observing the resulting changes in the output
variance without knowledge of the received signal
vector. Although perturbation based algorithm
resolves this ambiguity for analog beamforming but
the drawback associated with it is the need to vary
the weights at a high rate, i.e., at each training sample
and for the long time, i.e., for the duration of whole
training period. This makes practical complications
in terms of the need of precise synchronization
between the ADC, analog components and digital
signal processor (DSP), limitations on adaptation
rate posed by the slow switching, i.e. settling time
of the analog components and also because of
the quantization error which occurs due to the
low resolution of analog components which scales
with the length of the perturbation period. The
algorithm proposed in [3] not only estimates the
autocorrelation matrix and cross-correlation vector
without the need of the received signal vector but
also alleviates the need of frequent weight changes
as required in perturbation based algorithm, i.e., the
dmr algorithm just only needs M 2 weight changes,
where M is the number of antenna elements. This
allows finite values of weights to be assigned in
the beamformer and is thus less susceptible to the
quantization error. Thus dmr based algorithm claims
to be used in high data rate applications with slow
switching and finite resolution phase shifters and
amplifiers and hence presents a power and cost
effective solution for analog beamforming.
 3

ℎ𝑞𝑀

∗
User 0 𝑤𝑀

ℎ𝑞4
User 1 
IQ 𝑥𝑀 (k) 𝑦𝑀 (k)
ADC ∗
𝑤𝑀 
Dowconvert
ℎ𝑞3 𝑤4∗ y(t) y(k)
 IQ

+ DOWNCONVERT
ADC
User q
 + ℎ𝑞2 𝑤3∗
IQ ADC 𝑥2 (k) 𝑦2 (k)
𝑤2∗
Dowconvert
ℎ𝑞1 𝑤2∗
User Q-1
IQ ADC 𝑥1 (k) 𝑦1 (k)
𝑤1∗ 𝑤1∗
Dowconvert

BEAMFORMING
CONTROL BEAMFORMING
Reference signal CONTROL d(k)

Figure 1: Multi-port beamforming architecture Figure 2: Single-port beamforming architecture

REPORT ORGANIZATION

The report organization is as follows. Section I gives whose entries represents the background/electronic
overview of analog beamforming and discusses noise. In our scenario the desired signal is assumed
some features of algorithms proposed in [3] and to be i0 (t) whereas the other Q−1 signals are treated
[1]. In Section II the theoretical background and as interfering signals.
system model for analog beamforming is presented.
In Section III the two analog beamforming In matrix form x(t) is given by
algorithms are discussed in detail. Extension of 
x0 (t)

analog beamformig algorithms for the modified  x1 (t) 
 
beamforming structure are presented in Section IV.  · 
 = HiS + n(t) =
 
Results and simulations are presented in Section V. ·

 
·
 
 
xM −1 (t)
II. SYSTEM MODEL AND BACKGROUND 
h01 i0 (t) + h11 i1 (t) + · · · · · + h(Q−1)1 iQ−1 (t)


h02 i0 (t)ejΦ0 + h12 i1 (t)ejΦ1 + · · · · +h(Q−1)2 iQ−1 (t)ejΦQ−1 

 
We consider a scenario in which an M element 



 · · · · 
Uniform Linear Array (ULA) single-port structure, 



 · · · ·
receives signal through flat Rayleigh fading channels 




from Q users. Under the assumption of far-field point  ·
 · · · 

sources and narrow band signal processing, the base
 
h0(M ) i0 (t)ej(M −1)Φ0 + · · · + h(Q−1)(M ) iQ−1 (t)ej(M −1)ΦQ−1
band vector, x(t), induced across the antenna array 
n0 (t)

is given by  n1 (t) 
 
 · 
Q−1 +  
·
X  
 
x(t) = hq iq (t)s(θq ) + n(t) (II.1) 
 ·


q=0 nM −1 (t)

where x(t)=[x0 (t), x1 (t), ..., xM −1 (t)]T is the
received signal vector on M Rx antennas,
iq (t) is the transmitted signal from the q th
user, hq = [hq,0 , hq,1 , ........, hq,M −1 ]T is
the M × 1 vector of channel coefficients,
s(θq )=[1, ejπsin(θq ) , ....., ej(M −1)πsin(θq ) ]T is the
steering vector with θq denoting the angle of arrival
(AOA) of the q th signal measured from the broadside
of the antenna array and n(t) ∈ CM denotes a zero-
mean, additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN) vector
where H is a M × Q matrix of channel coefficients,
i.e., H = [h0 , h1 , · · · , hQ−1 ], i is a vector of
transmitted signals, S is a M × Q matrix of steering
vectors, i.e., S = [s(θ0 ), s(θ1 ), · · · , s(θQ−1 )] and
hqm is Rayleigh distributed, that is the real and
imaginary part of channel coefficients are complex
Gaussian, i.e., Re[hqm ], Im[hqm ] ∼ CN(0, σ 2 ) and
Φq =π sin θq .
The signal x(t) is processed by a linear beamformer
to produce the signal y(t) at the input to the ADC as

follows
y(t) = wH x(t) (II.2) R is written in column-vector form r using vector
T operation r = vec(R) ∈ CM . This is done because
where w=[w1 , ......, wM ] is the beamformer’s
weight vector. The signal y(t) is sampled at time
instances kTs , where k is the discrete-time index and
Ts is the sampling period inversely proportional to
the data-rate, to produce the discrete-time sequence
y(k)
y(k) = y(kTs ) = wH x(k) (II.3)
where
Q−1
X The weights should be selected in such a manner
x(k) = hq iq (k)s(θq ) + n(k) (II.4)
q=0
and Ts has been omitted for ease of notation. The
criteria used in dmr-based algorithm to find optimal
beamformer’s weights is to minimize the mean-
square error (MSE), i.e.,
  
min E |d(k)−y(k)|2 = min E |d(k)−wH x(k)|2
 such that the weight matrix minimizes the trace of
where d(k) = i0 (k) is the known training sequence.
The optimal MSE weight, wmmse , satisfy the
Wiener-Hopf relation:
Rwmmse = z (II.5)
where R = E[x(k)xH (k)] is the auto-correlation
matrix of x(k) and z = E[x(k)d∗ (k)] is the correla-
tion between the beamformer’s input vector and the
known training sequence. Evaluation of R and z de-
pends on the availability of received signal samples
at each antenna element. The algorithm used in gra-
dient based perturbation algorithm for beamformer’s
weight is the CLMS and the weights are updated
using an estimate of the output power gradient, i.e., stant for a whole block of K samples. This allows the
2Rw. In the next section, analog beamforming algo-
rithms proposed in [1] and [3] are presented.
III. ALGORITHMS
A. DMR based Algorithm
The algorithm in [3] comprises an estimation of the system in (III.2) is given as
R and z and the evaluation of wmmse from those
estimates by making use of (II.5). At first, the beam-
former’s mean output power for a given weight vec-
tor is defined as
H H H
P (w) = E[w x(k)x (k)w] = w Rw (III.1)
4
For ease of computation, the autocorrelation matrix
∆ 2
dmr algorithm needs M 2 weight changes to update
the weights therefore M 2 autocorrelation values can
easily be computed using M 2 different mean-power
values by using (III.1). By taking kronecker product
∆ 2
w̃ = wH ⊗ w ∈ CM , where ⊗ is the kronecker
product, we obtain
[P (w̃1 ), ..., P (w̃M 2 )]T = [w̃1 , ..., w̃M 2 ]H r (III.2)
that the weights should be linearly independent, i.e.,
no weight can be defined as a linear combination of
the other weights and as a result M 2 mean power
estimates are distinct and hence autocorrelation val-
ues also. Linear-independent weights result in a
full row rank weight matrix so the weight matrix
is also invertible. Also, the selection should be as
covariance matrices of auto-correlation, i.e., Σr̃ˆ =
ˆ ˆ ˆ ˆ
 H

E (r̃ − E[r̃])(r̃ − E[r̃]) and cross-correlation, i.e.,
minimizes their errors.
Since mean-power values in (III.2) involve auto-
correlation values, exact values of P (w̃m ), m =
1, 2, ..., M 2 are not known. Therefore they are re-
placed by their finite sample estimates P̂ (w̃m ):
mK
1 X
P̂ (w̃m ) = P̂ (wm ) = y(k)y ∗ (k)
K
k=(m−1)K+1
(III.3)
Thus, to estimate P̂ (w̃m ), the dmr algorithm requires
M 2 weight changes as a total of KM 2 samples of
y(k), it is assumed that the weight values remain con-
dmr algorithm to be used with slow-switching phase-
shifters and amplitude-control devices. Thus, dmr
based algorithm alleviates the problems associated
with perturbation algorithm which requires weight
update after every sample and, therefore, adaptation
speed heavily depends on the switching speed of the
analog components. Substituting P̂ (w̃m ) for P (w̃m )
H
P̂ (W̃ ) = W̃ r (III.4)
4 4
where W̃ = [w̃1 , w̃2 , ......w̃M 2 ] and P̂ (W̃ ) =
[P̂ (w̃1 ), P̂ (w̃2 ), ......, P̂ (w̃M 2 )]T
 5

The LS solution of (III.4) gives the estimate of contains the summation of products of eigenvectors
ˆ
autocorrelation vector, r̃, and their hermitian along with the constant eigen-
H −1 ˆ
r̃ˆ = (W̃ ) P̂ (III.5) value. The decomposition of R̃ is done similar to the
dmr beamformer [4] as follows
from which we can obtain an estimate of R: J M
ˆ ˆ ˆ
R̃dmr =
X ˆ ˆ ˆ H
λ̃m q̃ m q̃ m + αdmr
X
q̃ˆm q̃ˆH
R̃ = unvec(r̃) (III.6) m
m=1 m=J+1
where unvec is the inverse operation of vec, i.e., it (III.13)
reshapes a vector back to a matrix. where the largest J eigen-vectors along with their
In the dmr algorithm, estimation of z is done in eigen-values are referred to as the dominant mode
ˆ Correlation between the
parallel to calculation of r̃. and the remaining M − J eigen-values are set such
output y(k) and the reference signal d(k) = i0 (k), ˆ
that λ̃ ˆ ˆ
J+1 = λ̃J+2 = ..... = λ̃M = αdmr where αdmr
for the same set of weights, wm , m = 1, 2, ...., M 2 is a constant. The choice of J is done by setting a
ˆ is given as
that were used to calculate r̃, ˆ , where 0 6 λ̃ ˆ 6 1 and finding the
threshold, λ̃ th th
∗ H
α(w) = E[y(k)d (k)] = w z (III.7) smallest J ∈ {1, ...., M − 1} such that
For M 2 values of α, (III.7) is expressed in the form ˆ |
|λ̃ J+1
6 λ̃ˆ (III.14)
of a system of equations M th
X ˆ
T H
[α(w1 ), α(w2 ), .., α(wM 2 )] = [w1 , w2 , .., wM 2 ] z |λ̃m |
(III.8) m=1
α(w) involves cross-correlation values, therefore, ∆
2 The nvalue of αdmr ois given as αdmr =
exact values of α(wm ), m = 1, 2, ..., M , are not ˆ ˆ
known. Their estimate is found by the same K sam- max |λ̃J+1 |, ......., |λ̃M | . Finally,
ples of y(k), that were used in (III.3) J M
ˆ X 1 ˆ ˆH 1 X
mK
−1
R̃dmr = q̃ m q̃ m + q̃ˆm q̃ˆH
m
1 X
∗ ˆ α dmr
α̂(wm ) = y(k)d (k) (III.9) m=1 λ̃m m=J+1
K (III.15)
k=(m−1)K+1
ˆ
The dmr-based estimated weight, w̃dmr , is given as
Substituting α̂(wm ) in (III.8) ˆ dmr = R̃ ˆ −1 z̃.
ˆ
w̃ dmr
H
α̂(wm ) = wm z (III.10)
B. Perturbation Algorithm
In matrix form
The proposed algorithm in [1] comprises two dis-
α̂(W ) = W H z (III.11) tinct phases. In phase 1, using one of the three
∆
where α̂(W ) = [α̂(w1 ), ....., α̂(wM 2 )]T . The LS proposed schemes (which are used in either one or
solution of (III.11) is given as two power measuring receiver systems), an unbiased
gradient vector, i.e., 2Rw is estimated, which is then
z̃ˆ = (W W H )−1 W α̂ (III.12) used in phase 2 to update the weights for adaptive
The beamformer weights are calculated using the beamforming.
estimates R̃ˆ and z̃ˆ in (II.5), i.e., w̃
ˆ mmse = R̃ ˆ −1 z̃.
ˆ At first, the adaptive beamforming problem is for-
ˆ −1 , regularization of R̃ ˆ is also done, mulated as an optimization problem, i.e., minimiza-
For accurate R̃
tion of the mean power while maintaining a non-zero
as for finite-sample size K, it can be ill-conditioned.
fixed response in the desired direction
The regularization used in the algorithm is dominant-
mode-rejection which involves decomposition of R̃ ˆ min wH Rw
(III.16)
into two terms: the first-term contains the dominant subject to wH s0 = 1
mode (i.e., the summation of products of eigen- where s0 is the steering vector in the given direction.
values and the product of corresponding eigen- A CLMS algorithm for determining the weight vec-
vectors and their hermitian of the received signal tor, w, is given by
x(k)) and the second-term sets the eigen-values s0
below a certain threshold to a constant value and w(k + 1) = P o [w(k) − αg(w(k))] + (III.17)
M
 6

RECEIVER
where P o is the M × M projection operator matrix POWER
X(.) × MEASUREMENT
s0 sH
P o = [I − sH
0
] = [I − P oc ] M
0 s0
NOMINAL
WEIGHT 𝐰+
where P oc is the projection matrix onto the column w Σ X
1
𝐾
Σ 𝒈𝟏 (w)

space of s0 , α is the step-size, and g(w(k)) is an +++

-
unbiased estimate of the gradient of Mean-square-
error MSE which is given as
S
Ow MSE(w)|w=w(k) = g(w(k)) = SEQUENCE

2x(k + 1)xH (k + 1)w(k) = 2R(k + 1)w(k)
(III.18)
In the algorithm, the gradient estimate is obtained
after a complete perturbation cycle of length K time
instances. The complex perturbation sequence S is
defined as
S = {δ(1), δ(2), ........, δ(K)}
where δ(·) is a M × 1 complex column vector.
Properties for these sequences are defined as (i) Or-
thogonality, (ii) Zero-Mean, or (iii) Odd-symmetry
One of the proposed scheme in [1] is a single-
receiver perturbation system as shown in Fig. 3.
The required gradient 2Rw is obtained by using the
perturbation sequence S to perturb the array weight
and then multiplying the sequence with the corre-
sponding instantaneous output power. At ith iteration
within the perturbation cycle, 1 6 i 6 K, the weight
vector is given as
w+ (w, i) = w + γδ(i), 16i6K (III.19)
where γ is a real positive scalar which reflects
the size of the perturbation. The gradient estimate,
g 1 (w), is given as
K
1 X
g 1 (w) = f1 (w+ , i)δ(i) (III.20)
γK i=1
where f1 (w+ , i) is the instantaneous array output
power given as
f1 (w+ , i) = wH H
+ (w, i)x(i)x (i)w + (w, i)
assuming that the perturbation cycle is initiated
at time zero. It is given in [1] that required gradient
estimate can only be unbiased if the perturbation
sequence has the properties of odd symmetry and
orthogonality, i.e., for any γ ≥ 0
Figure 3: Single receiver perturbation system
carefully as it increases the output power due to
perturbation noise, also γ determines the accuracy
(i.e., variance) of required gradient estimate.
Construction of sequences that can be used with
the single receiver system is also given in [1].
Let S be an orthogonal sequence and
[z1 (j), z2 (j), ....., z2M (j)] be 2M real normal and
orthogonal components of δ(j), i.e.,
Re[δ i (j)] = zi (j), i = 1, 2, ...., M
Im[δ i (j)] = zi+M (j), j = 1, 2, ...., K
Two proposed single receiver sequences are time-
multiplex sequence and Walsh function sequence.
Time-multiplex sequence is defined for K = 4M
time-instances.
 √ 
 √ 2M ,
 j = 2i − 1  
zi (j) = − 2M , j = 2i
 
0, 1 6 j 6 4M
 
(III.21)
By Hadamard ordering, i.e., ordering in which rows
of a matrix are mutually orthogonal, of a discrete-
time Walsh function, i.e., a function of square pulses
with values of +1 and −1, a matrix is formed and its
2m−1 rows, where m = [log2 (2M − 1)], define the
2M real sequences [z1 (j), z2 (j), ............, z2M (j)],
as only 2m−1 rows have zero-mean. The Hadamard
matrix Z(m) of order 2m is defined as
Z(k − 1) Z(k − 1)
 
Z(k) = , k = 1, 2, ..., m
Z(k − 1) − Z(k − 1)
(III.22)
where Z(0) = 1 and [z1 (j), z2 (j), ............, z2M (j)]
are given by

E[g 1 (w)|w] = 2Rw zi (j) = (i + 1)th row of Z(m)

however, the parameter γ needs to be chosen where length of Walsh function sequence = K = 2m .
 7

RECEIVER 1
The second proposed scheme is two power measur- X POWER
MEASUREMENT
ing receiver system with the application of perturba-
𝐰+ +
tion sequence S in anti-phase to two sets of weights +
Σ -
and then multiplying the perturbation sequence with + +
1
difference of measured power to estimate the re- w
S × 𝐾
Σ 𝒈𝟐 (w)
X(.) SEQUENCE
quired gradient 2Rw as shown in Fig. 4. Receiver -1
+ +
1 and 2 has its weight updated according to the Σ
equation 𝐰−

X POWER
MEASUREMENT
w+ (w, i) = w + γδ(i), i = 1, 2, ...., K RECEIVER 2
w− (w, i) = w − γδ(i),
(III.23) Figure 4: Dual receiver perturbation system
and the gradient-estimate is given as
K RECEIVER 1
1 X 
g 2 (w) = f1 (w+ , i) − f2 (w− , i) δ(i) X POWER
2γK i=1 MEASUREMENT

𝐰+ +
(III.24) +
where f1 (w+ , i) and f2 (w− , i) denote the instanta- Σ -
+ +
neous output power from receiver 1 and 2 respec- w
S ×
1
𝐾
Σ 𝒈 (w) 𝟑
X(.) SEQUENCE
tively. It is given in [1] that the above gradient es-
timate will be unbiased if the sequence S just fulfills
the property of orthogonality. This gives the benefit
of shorter sequence length than the single-reciever X POWER
sequence and hence shorter perturbation noise. Con- MEASUREMENT
RECEIVER 2
struction of these orthogonal sequences are proposed
in [1] using Walsh function, square-wave and time-
multiplex sequence. Figure 5: Dual receiver perturbation system with a reference receiver
Orthogonal time-multiplex sequence is defined as
( √ )
2M , j=i and the gradient-estimate is given as
zi (j) = (III.25)
0, 1 6 j 6 2M
K
Thus, the length of the perturbation sequence for the 1 X 
g 3 (w) = f1 (w+ , i) − f2 (w, i) δ(i)
dual-receiver system K = 2M , is half the length of γK i=1
a single receiver system. Since there is no constraint (III.27)
of zero mean for the sequence, any of the rows of where f1 (w+ , i) and f2 (w, i) denote the
Hadamard matrix can be used, thus instantaneous output power from receiver 1 and
 2, respectively.
zi (m) = ith row of Z m , i = 1, 2, ...., 2M It is given in [1] that instead of just orthogonality,
m
and K = 2M = 2 where m = [log2 (2M )]. the perturbation sequence also needs to possess the
property of odd symmetry for unbiased gradient
To further reduce the perturbation noise, as in dual- estimate, i.e.,
receiver system where both weights of receivers are
perturbed, the third scheme sets the weight value of Ew [g 3 (w)|w] = 2Rw
a 2nd receiver to a nominal value w and update the
weight of a receiver 1 by a sequence S as shown in Time-multiplex sequences and sequences using
Fig. 5, the weight vector of a receiver 1 is given as Walsh function used in a single receiver system can
also be used in the third scheme as they fulfill both
w+ (w, i) = w+γδ(i), i = 1, 2, ..., K (III.26) properties of orthogonality and odd-symmetry.
 8

ℎ𝑞𝑀

IV. Extension of dmr based Algorithm User 0 𝑤𝑀∗

ADC D
𝑦𝐷 (k)

ℎ𝑞4 
User 1 
A variation of the single-port structure, shown in  
ℎ𝑞3 𝑤4∗ 
Fig. 6, is also considered and simulated. In this 𝑦2 (k) y(k)
+ ADC 2 +
structure, which lies in-between the single-port User q
ℎ𝑞2 𝑤3∗
and multi-port structure, signals from a subset of
antennas are summed-up for input to an arbitrary User Q-1
ℎ𝑞1 𝑤2∗
𝑦1 (k)
number of ADCs, say D, and then the sampled + ADC 1
𝑤1∗
data, y1 (k), y2 (k), . . . , yD (k), is summed-up to get
the output, y(k). For the modified structure with
multiple ADCs we consider extension of single-port BEAMFORMING
d(k)
CONTROL
algorithms which is named as single-port structure
with multiple ADCs. The information at the output Figure 6: Single-port structure with multiple ADC
of each ADC can be useful in reducing computations
and increasing efficiency, i.e., MSE and convergence
characteristics of algorithms. Fast and efficient the inverse of the matrix of kronecker-product of
algorithms for the multi-port structure are not weights. The dmr-based algorithm is extended for
applicable to this structure as the signals on the better performance and computational savings, such
individual antenna elements are still not accessible. that by using the same set of weights to estimate the
However, the single-port algorithms can be modified mean-power values of the 1st and 4th quadrant of
to be more efficient at the cost of an increase in the the above matrix, i.e., the main-diagonal partitions
number of ADCs, by using the information provided which lie along the main diagonal of a matrix. In the
by each individual ADC. The auto-correlation values above partitioned matrix, the number of dotted-lines
of x(k) in matrix form, i.e., R are given by imply that 2 ADCs, i.e., D = 2 divide the array of
  M antenna elements, assuming that M is even.
r1 ·· rM 2 /2−M +1 rM 2 /2+1 ·· rM 2 −M +1 Since the main-diagonal partition estimates involve
 r2 ·· rM 2 /2−M +2 rM 2 /2+2 ·· rM 2 −M +2 

 .. .. .. .. .. ..

 only the antenna-elements of a particular ADC, e.g.,
. . . . . . computation of 1st main-diagonal partition values
 
 
 rM/2 ·· rM 2 /2−M/2 rM 2 /2+M/2 ·· rM 2 −M/2 
 
involve only antenna-elements of 1st ADC, therefore
rM/2+1 ·· rM 2 /2−M/2+1 rM 2 /2+M/2+1 ·· rM 2 −M/2+1 
 
 ..

.. .. .. .. ..

 there will be a computational saving in the estimation
 . . . . . . 
of each value of main-diagonal partitions. Also, be-
rM ·· rM 2 /2 rM 2 /2+M ·· rM 2
cause of the use of same set of (M/D)2 weights for
the estimates of each main-diagonal partition, there
Similarly, the corresponding mean-power values will be a reduction in MSE and enhancement in it’s
in matrix form can be written as convergence characteristics.

P1 ·· PM 2 /2−M +1 PM 2 /2+1 ·· PM 2 −M +1
 For arbitrary number of ADCs, the number of par-
 P2
 ·· PM 2 /2−M +2 PM 2 /2+2 ·· PM 2 −M +2 

tition is equal to D2 . The number of ADCs should be
 .. .. .. .. .. ..  kept such that D divides M . If the case arises where
 . . . . . . 
only a single antenna-element is remaining instead
 
 PM/2 ·· PM 2 /2−M/2 PM 2 /2+M/2 ·· PM 2 −M/2 
 
PM/2+1

·· PM 2 /2−M/2+1 PM 2 /2+M/2+1 ·· PM 2 −M/2+1 

of multiple elements for ADC then that particular
.. .. .. .. .. ..
 

 . . . . . .

 element would be directly input to a separate ADC,
PM ·· PM 2 /2 PM 2 /2+M ·· PM 2 e.g., if M = 7 then the minimum possible value for
D could be 2, but in this case one element is left out
where, and that would be directly input to the third ADC.
Generally M th , i.e., last element of an array will
Pi = P (wi ) = E[wH H
i x(k)x (k)w i ] i = 1, ..., M 2 be a single input to Dth ADC. However the choice
H −1
and [r1 , ..., rM 2 ]T = [w̃H
1 , ..., w̃ M 2 ] [P1 , ..., PM 2 ]
T of last element is not mandatory, any other element
(IV.1) could be a single input to any particular ADC. Also
Autocorrelation values are evaluated in vector form, partitioning of the mean-power matrix is done in
using a vector of M 2 mean-power estimates and such a way that it’s M th row and M th column will
 9

not be considered and as a result partitioned matrix
is a square matrix of even number of elements.
We denote by Pu (w(u) ) the output power at the
output of the uth ADC, when the corresponding
weights are stored in the M/D long vector w(u) . We
have
Pu w(u) = E |yu (k)|2 = E (|w(u)H xu (k)|2 ),

 
(IV.2)
where xu (k) is the M/D-long sub-vector of x(k)
formed by xbu (k), ..., xj u (k) with bu ,ju being the
indices of the first and last antenna elements, respec-
tively, of the uth ADC.
Alternatively, we can write Pu (w(u) ) using an appro-
priately zero-padded M -long vector w:
where the weights used in (IV.3) and (IV.5) are dif-
ferent and unique. That is just to represent it conve-
niently the weight index in the above equation starts
from 1, ..., M 2 (D−1)/D, i.e., it represents a separate
set of M 2 (D − 1)/D weights from the overall M 2
weights. P̂u,v is the combination of output power at
uth and v th ADC, i.e., mean-power estimate belong
to the off-diagonal partitions and each partition has
M 2 (D − 1)/D2 values.
In the case of M = 7 and D = 3, i.e., when the
M th , last antenna element is the only single input to
the Dth ADC, 2M − 1 mean-power values out of the
remaining M 2 (D − 1)/D are estimated using M th
element of the 2M − 1 weights, i.e.,

w = [0, ..., 0, w(u) , 0, ..., 0]T PD w m(D)

   (D)∗
= E |yD (k)|2 = E |wm

xD (k)| ,
| {z }
bu −1 mK
(D) 1 X
Indeed it is easy to see that P̂D (wm ) = |yD (k)|2
K
k=(m−1)K+1
Pu (w(u) ) = P (w) = E(|wH x(k)|2 ) mK
1 X
(D)∗
Therefore we can estimate each element of the u th
= |wm xD (k)|2 ,
main diagonal partition using K samples as follows K
k=(m−1)K+1
mK where m = 1, ..., 2M − 1
1 X
P̂u w(u) 2 (IV.5)


m = |yu (k)|
K (D)
k=(m−1)K+1 where wm is a scalar, xD (k) is a single-element
1
mK
X of x(k), P̂D is the output power at the Dth ADC,
= (u)H
|wm xu (k)| 2 (IV.3) i.e., mean-power value belong to the M th row and
K
k=(m−1)K+1 M th column of the mean-power matrix. Again, the
where u = 1, ..., D, indices 1, ..., 2M −1 in the above equation represents
and m = 1, ..., (M/D)2 for each u a separate set of 2M −1 weights from the overall M 2
weights.
That is for the estimates of each uth partition Mean-power estimates of main-diagonal partition
the same set of (M/D)2 weights are used. The from (IV.2) with respect to the used weights in
remaining M 2 (D − 1)/D mean-power values are matrix form can be written as
estimated using the output of different ADCs which
use the remaining KM 2 (D − 1)/D samples and
 
P̂u (wzu +u ) P̂u (wzu +u+M ) ·· P̂u (wzu +u+M c )
M 2 (D − 1)/D distinct weights, i.e.,  u zu +u+1 ) P̂u (wzu +u+1+M ) ·· P̂u (wzu +u+M c+1 )
P̂ (w 
∆u = 
 .. .. .. .. 



2  . . . . 
Pu,v wm = E | yu (k) + yv (k) | , P̂u (wzu +u+c ) P̂u (wzu +u+M +c ) ·· P̂u (wzu +u+M c+c )
= E (|w(u)H
m x u (k) + w (v)H
m x v (k)| 2
)
mK where,
1 X
2
P̂u,v (wm ) = | y u (k) + y v (k) | ,
K
k=(m−1)K+1 u = 1, ..., D, c = M/D−1, zu = (u−1)(M 2 /D+c)
mK
1 X
= | w(u)H
m xu (k)+ Similarly mean-power estimates of off-diagonal
K
k=(m−1)K+1
partitions from (IV.4) and single antenna-element
w(v)H

2
m x v (k) | , from (IV.5) with respect to the used weights in
2 matrix form can be written as
where u, v = 1, ..., D, m = 1, ..., M (D − 1)/D
(IV.4)
 10

 
P̂u,v (wzu +u ) P̂u,v (wzu +u+M ) ·· P̂u,v (wzu +u+M D ) For cross-correlation values, the algorithm is ap-
 P̂ (w
 u,v zu +u+1 ) P̂u,v (wzu +u+1+M ) ·· P̂u,v (wzu +u+M D+1 ) 
 plied separately on the antenna elements of each
∆u,v =  .. .. .. .. 
 ADC and the computed values are concatenated for
 
 . . . .
P̂u,v (wzu +u+D ) P̂u,v (wzu +u+M +D ) ·· P̂u,v (wzu +u+M D+D ) all M elements, i.e.,

αu w(u) = E yu (k)d∗ (k) ,

 
m
where,
= E w(u)H xu (k)d∗ (k) ,
 
m
u, v = 1, ..., D, zu = (u−1)(M D+M/D−1)+(M/D) mK
1 X
(u)
α̂u (wm ) = |w(u)H
m xu (k)d∗ (k)|,
h K
∆d = P̂d (wa ), P̂d (w2a ), ..., P̂d (wad ), P̂d (wa(d+1) ), ... k=(m−1)K+1
iT where u = 1, ..., D, m = 1, ..., M 2
..., P̂d (wa(2d) ), P̂d (wa(2d)+1 ), ..., P̂d (wa(2d)+a ) (IV.6)
where a = M and d = D are the indices representing (u) (u)H −1
ˆ (u) (u)


z̃ u = W W W α̂u , u = 1, ..., D
the antenna-element and ADC, respectively. (IV.7)
After having all M 2 mean-power estimates, i.e., and finally z̃ˆ = z̃ˆ , ..., z̃ˆ T . For all computations,
1 D
∆u , ∆u,v and ∆d , matrix of P̂ is formed taking care the weights used are linearly independent and as a
of the indexing with respect to the used weights. For result the weight matrix is full row-rank and it’s Kro-
example, the matrix of mean-power estimates, P̂ , for necker product is full rank so that both are invertible
the case of D = 2 and M = 6, can be given as and the solution of r̃ˆ and z̃ˆ exist.
  Overall, weights are updated after M 2 samples

 ∆u , u = 1 (IV.2) ∆u,v , u = 2, v = 1 (IV.3)  with less computation and better performance at the






cost of increase in the number of ADCs.

∆u,v , u = 1, v = 2 (IV.3) ∆u , u = 2

(IV.2) The perturbation algorithm is modified such that
the perturbed weights are applied on D sets of
where, M/D antenna elements and then MSE gradient, i.e.,
g(w(k)) is estimated by using the final output,
 
P̂1 (w1 ) P̂1 (w7 ) P̂1 (w13 )
(u)
∆1 = P̂1 (w2 ) P̂1 (w8 ) P̂1 (w14 ) w+ (w(u) , i) = w(u) + γδ (u) (i),
P̂ (w ) P̂1 (w9 ) P̂1 (w15 )
 1 3  u = 1, ..., D, 16i6K
P̂2 (w22 ) P̂2 (w28 ) P̂2 (w34 )
∆2 = P̂2 (w23 ) P̂2 (w29 ) P̂2 (w35 )
P̂ (w ) P̂2 (w30 ) P̂2 (w36 ) Finally, weights are updated by using the equation,
 2 24 
P̂1,2 (w4 ) P̂1,2 (w10 ) P̂1,2 (w16 )
∆1,2 = P̂1,2 (w5 ) P̂1,2 (w11 ) P̂1,2 (w17 ) s0
w(k + 1) = P o [w(k) − αg(w(k))] +
P̂ (w ) P̂1,2 (w12 ) P̂1,2 (w18 ) M
 1,2 6 
P̂2,1 (w19 ) P̂2,1 (w25 ) P̂2,1 (w31 )
Even with without any modification in the algorithms
and ∆2,1 = P̂2,1 (w20 ) P̂2,1 (w26 ) P̂2,1 (w32 )
of Section (III) the structure can provide flexibility in
P̂2,1 (w21 ) P̂2,1 (w27 ) P̂2,1 (w33 )
that, samples at antenna elements of 1, ..., D ADCs
can have different sampling rate, e.g., for D = 2,
where the structure of the 1st weight of each sampling-rate for ADC 1 and ADC 2 can be T s = 1
1
main-diagonal partition, i.e., w1 and w22 due to the and T s = 2, respectively while maintaining the
2
repetition of weight values can be given as fixed-adaptation rate of weights, i.e., M 2 .
w1 = [wa , wb , wc , 0, 0, 0]T ,
w22 = [0, 0, 0, wa , wb , wc ]T
where wa , wb and wc are arbitrary weight values. V. SIMULATIONS
Auto-correlation values are estimated using inverse
of the matrix of Kronecker-product of weights and a In this section, the performance of algorithms for
vector of M 2 mean-power estimates, i.e., single-port beamformer discussed in Section (III)
H
and Section (IV) is investigated via computer sim-
r̃ˆ = (W̃ )−1 P̂ ulations. For all simulations, a 6-element ULA is

considered and all signals are modeled as zero-
mean, complex Gaussian random variables except
the desired signal, i0 (k), which is modeled as a
QPSK signal and the other iq (k), q > 1, signals
are considered as interfering signals. The AOA of
the desired signal is set at θ0 = π/9 (20◦ ); the
variance of the desired signal and background noise
are σ02 = 1, and σN 2
= 0.1, respectively and the
channel coefficient h is kept constant, i.e., fading
channel is not varying during transmission for all
samples as the considered wireless system is high
data rate. For the interference, one of the following
scenario is considered:
• Scenario A: No interfering signals are present.
• Scenario B: Three interfering signals are present,
possessing AOAs of θ1 = −π/18 (−10◦ ), θ2 =
5π/18 (50◦ ), θ3 = −2π/9 (−40◦ ), and variances
of σ12 = σ22 = σ32 = 0.5.
• Scenario C: Same as Scenario B, except that
variance are increased to σ12 = σ22 = σ32 = 1.
• Scenario D: One interfering signal is present,
possessing AOA of θ1 = −π/18 (−10◦ ), and a
variance of σ12 = 10.
The predefined initial weights used to estimate
ˆ
R̃ and z̃ˆ for the evaluation of w̃ ˆ dmr are given by
W = Ψ, where Ψ is provided in Appendix A. MSE
is used as a performance metric, ξ(w), which for a
given w, is ξ(w) = E[|d(k)−wH x(k)|2 ]. Threshold
parameter, which distinguishes the eigen-modes of
ˆ , is evaluated by the criteria given in (III.14)
R̃
dmr
ˆ = 0.24. For performance evaluation,
and is set at λ̃th
dmr-based algorithm is compared with a slight
modification of LMS-based perturbation algorithm.
The modified perturbation algorithm instead of
evaluating an estimate of power gradient calculates
an estimate of MSE gradient, Ôw ξ(w)|w=w(k) , at
each iteration, thus reducing the need of a power
measuring receiver and simplifies the beamforming
structure of a single receiver perturbation system. As
a result the gradient equation, (III.20) becomes
K is modeled. Since the B-bit phase shifter can adjust
11
different scenarios are plotted in Figs. 7 through
10. Since the length of use perturbation sequence,
i.e., time-multiplex sequence for a single-receiver
system is 4M = 24 samples, therefore weights can
not be updated when samples are not a multiple
of 24 and the plot of MSE appears to be constant
over that period, similar is the case with w̃ ˆ dmr , i.e.,
weights can not be updated when samples are not
a multiple of M 2 = 36 samples. Recall that, in a
real system the switching speed of analog weights
put limitations on the perturbation algorithm, as the
algorithm needs to update the weight after every
sample, whereas in dmr beamformer the algorithm
needs to update the weight after every M 2 samples.
This behavior of switching speed of weights is
accounted in simulations by setting a parameter Tw ,
i.e., a finite period of time required by the weights to
switch. As a result, the sampling rate of ADC can be
relaxed as the samples during the time Tw contain no
useful information for weight update. In each figure
ˆ dmr , and four plots for
there are four plots for w̃
wpert . The plot labeled as Tw = IN ST corresponds
to a fast-switching analog weights i.e. the weights
can switch instantaneously, and the plots labeled
as Tw = 1, Tw = 5, and Tw = 10 correspond to a
system in which the ADC collects only multiples
of 1, 5, and 10 samples, i.e., ADC drops samples
during the transient period of weight changes. From
simulations, it is clear that w̃ ˆ dmr is consistent in
performance regardless of the switching rate of
weights and outperforms wpert in all scenarios even
with slow switching speed which shows its practical
importance in terms of low cost.
Another performance indicator that is considered
for dmr based algorithm is finite-resolution of
phase-shifters and amplitude control elements.
Finite-resolution of these devices will produce errors
in the weights applied to an incoming signal as
compared to those calculated by the beamformer. To
simulate the effect of this performance parameter,
a B-bit phase-shifter and amplitude control element
1 X  H
2
the phase in increments of 2π/(2B ), therefore
g 4 (w) = i0 (i) − w x(i) δ(i)

γK i=1 the all possible phase-shift is φ ps =
 set of
Proof of MSE gradient estimate is provided in 0, 2π/(2 ), 4π/(2B ), . . . , (2B − 1)2π/(2B ) .
B

Appendix B. Step-size of perturbation algorithm, Similarly, a B-bit amplitude control element is

whose value affects the algorithm’s steady-state capable of  applying an amplitude from the discrete
error and speed of convergence, is set at α = 0.0025. set a = 0, 1/(2 − 1), 2/(2B − 1), . . . , 1 , where
B

MSE of w̃ ˆ dmr and wpert versus the number of the values in the set a are normalized, i.e., |w|norm =
samples used to calculate these weights in the four

|w|/|w|max . Under the considered model, the
scaling factor 1/|w|max is removed by multiplying
the beamformer output, y(k), by |w|max . Thus,
the set of Ball possible amplitudes of w are sequences, i.e., time-multiplex and walsh-function
0, |w|max /(2 − 1), 2|w|max /(2B − 1), . . . , |w|max .
Quantization effect of the phase shifter and
amplitude-control element on the weight vector,
w, is simulated by rounding the phase and amplitude
of each entry of w to the nearest element of φps and
a|w|max .
The proposed algorithm can be designed to
minimize the effect of quantization by ensuring that
the weights, w1 , . . . , wM 2 , used in the calculation
ˆ and z̃,
of R̃ ˆ are constructed using the sets φps and
a|w|max , i.e., the values that can be produced by the
finite resolution analog phase shifters and amplitude-
control elements. As a result, the only quantization
occurs when the optimal weight estimate, w̃ ˆ dmr , is
implemented by the analog devices. Conversely, the
weights used in the perturbation based algorithm are
continuously subject to quantization effect at each
iteration during the weight perturbation.
In simulations, the number of samples used
to calculate w̃ ˆ dmr and wpert ranges from 1 to
3600 (sampling-rate for ADC is set at T s=1),
and all results are averaged over 100 independent
simulations. Figs. 11 through 14 , illustrating the
performance of w̃ ˆ dmr and wpert , using 6-,7-,8- and
9-Bit quantization (where both analog components
possess the same resolution). Simulations clearly
show that wpert is more effected to performance
degradation than w̃ ˆ dmr due to quantization of
weights, not only this even at low resolution, w̃ ˆ dmr
shows considerable decrease in MSE as compared
to wpert which is quite interesting for practical
implementation as low resolution devices are
generally cheaper.
Perturbation algorithm for analog beamforming
proposed in [1] is also simulated. All simulation
parameters are same as modeled in scenario A of
dmr based algorithm and the initial weight is chosen
as zero weight vector which is perturbed using the
perturbation sequence proposed in [1] throughout
the length of the sequence. The performance metric
for perturbation based algorithm is the same as
for dmr-based algorithm, i.e., MSE ξ(w). MSE of
wpert versus the number of samples are plotted in
Figs. 15 through 17 for all three systems proposed
in [1], i.e., a single receiver system, dual receiver
12
system with dual perturbation and dual receiver with
a reference receiver in which the receiver measures
the output power. For each system, two proposed
sequence are used as a perturbation sequence for
weight perturbation and gradient estimation. Step-
size remains set at α = 0.0025, and the parameter γ,
which accounts for the perturbation noise power and
reflects the size of the perturbation sequence (noted
that, length of the time-multiplex sequence for a
single receiver system is 4M = 24 samples and for
the dual receiver system it is 2M = 12 samples both
of which are greater than the length of the Walsh-
function sequence 2M -1 = 11 samples), is set at
η
γ1 = √2M = 0.2889 (for time-multiplex sequences)
and γ2 = η = 0.1414 (for Walsh-function sequence),
where η is the smallest weight change possible (real
and imaginary part).
Single-port structure with multiple ADCs as
shown in Fig. 6 is also simulated with the same
algorithms as described in Section (III) but with the
different sampling rate for each ADC and with an
extension of algorithms as described in Section (IV)
with the same sampling rate. Simulations illustrating
the performance of w̃ ˆ dmr and wpert for varying level
of switching and quantization with the different
sampling rate are shown in Figs. 18 through 25. In
simulations, each ADC samples data for two antenna
elements and sampling rate for three ADCs are set at
T s1 =1, T s2 =2 and T s3 =3, result in an increase in the
number of samples three times, i.e., 10,800 samples
instead of 3600 samples and considerable decrease
in MSE for all scenarios. For three power measuring
systems proposed in [1], the performance of wpert
using time-multiplex and Walsh function sequence
are shown in Figs. 26 through 28. Simulations
illustrating the performance of extended dmr and
perturbation algorithms are shown in Figs. 29
through 36. In simulations, the antenna elements,
i.e., M are evenly divided into D = 2 groups, i.e.,
M/D = 3 antenna element for each ADC. Weights
are chosen such that the weight values on the antenna
elements of 1st ADC, i.e., on the first three elements
of antenna array and on the antenna elements of
2nd ADC, i.e., on the last three elements of antenna
array are same to estimate the mean-power values
of main-diagonal partitions, i.e., estimates of the
1st and 4th quadrant of a mean-power matrix shown
in Section (IV). Weight matrix for extended dmr
 13

Switching Scenario A
0
algorithm is provided in Appendix C. The extended DMR : Tw=INST
algorithm seems to be efficient, i.e., with reduced DMR : Tw=1
-1 DMR : Tw=5
computations shows considerable decrease and DMR :Tw=10
PERT : Tw=INST
improvement in convergence characteristics of MSE PERT : Tw=1
-2
at the cost of increase in the number of ADCs. PERT : Tw=5
PERT : Tw=10

MSE (db)
-3

-4

-5

-6
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Number of samples

Figure 7: MSE as a function of sample size in Scenario A for varying

switching speed

Switching Scenario B
0
DMR : Tw=INST
DMR : Tw=1
-2 DMR : Tw=5
DMR :Tw=10
PERT : Tw=INST
PERT : Tw=1
-4
PERT : Tw=5
PERT : Tw=10
MSE (db)

-6

-8

-10

-12
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Number of samples

Figure 8: MSE as a function of sample size in Scenario B for varying

switching speed

Switching Scenario C
0
DMR : Tw=INST
-1 DMR : Tw=1
DMR : Tw=5
DMR :Tw=10
-2 PERT : Tw=INST
PERT : Tw=1
-3 PERT : Tw=5
PERT : Tw=10
MSE (db)

-4

-5

-6

-7

-8
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Number of samples

Figure 9: MSE as a function of sample size in Scenario C for varying

switching speed
 14
Switching Scenario D
0 Quantization Scenario C
0
DMR : Tw=INST
DMR : No Quantization
DMR : Tw=1
DMR : 6-Bit Quantization
DMR : Tw=5
-1 DMR : 7-Bit Quantization
DMR :Tw=10
DMR : 8-Bit Quantization
PERT : Tw=INST
DMR : 9-Bit Quantization
PERT : Tw=1
-0.5 PERT : No Quantization
PERT : Tw=5 -2
PERT : 6-Bit Quantization
PERT : Tw=10
MSE (db)

PERT : 7-Bit Quantization

MSE (db)
PERT : 8-Bit Quantization
-3 PERT : 9-Bit Quantization

-1
-4

-5

-1.5
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 -6
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Number of samples
Number of samples
Figure 10: MSE as a function of sample size in Scenario D Figure 13: MSE as a function of sample size in Scenario C for varying
for varying switching speed level of quantization

Quantization Scenario A
0 Quantization Scenario D
0
DMR : No Quantization
DMR : No Quantization
DMR : 6-Bit Quantization
-1 -0.5 DMR : 6-Bit Quantization
DMR : 7-Bit Quantization
DMR : 7-Bit Quantization
DMR : 8-Bit Quantization
DMR : 8-Bit Quantization
DMR : 9-Bit Quantization -1
-2 DMR : 9-Bit Quantization
PERT : No Quantization
PERT : No Quantization
PERT : 6-Bit Quantization
PERT : 6-Bit Quantization
PERT : 7-Bit Quantization -1.5
MSE (db)

-3 PERT : 7-Bit Quantization

MSE (db)

PERT : 8-Bit Quantization

PERT : 8-Bit Quantization
PERT : 9-Bit Quantization
-2 PERT : 9-Bit Quantization
-4

-2.5
-5
-3

-6
-3.5

-7
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 -4
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Number of samples
Number of samples
Figure 11: MSE as a function of sample size in Scenario A Figure 14: MSE as a function of sample size in Scenario D for varying
for varying level of quantization level of quantization

Quantization Scenario B
0 Single Rx system
0.4
DMR : No Quantization
PERT : Time Mux sequence
-1 DMR : 6-Bit Quantization
0.3 PERT : Walsh-Func sequence
DMR : 7-Bit Quantization
-2 DMR : 8-Bit Quantization
DMR : 9-Bit Quantization 0.2
PERT : No Quantization
-3
PERT : 6-Bit Quantization
PERT : 7-Bit Quantization 0.1
MSE (db)

-4
MSE (db)

PERT : 8-Bit Quantization

PERT : 9-Bit Quantization
0
-5

-6 -0.1

-7 -0.2

-8 -0.3

-9
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 -0.4
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Number of samples
Number of samples
Figure 12: MSE as a function of sample size in Scenario B Figure 15: MSE as a function of sample size for single receiver
for varying level of quantization perturbation system
 15
Dual Rx system
0.25 Switching Scenario B in multiple ADC strucure
0.5
PERT : Time Mux sequence
DMR : Tw=INST
PERT : Walsh-Func sequence
DMR : Tw=1
0.2 0
DMR : Tw=5
DMR :Tw=10
PERT : Tw=INST
-0.5
0.15 PERT : Tw=1
PERT : Tw=5
MSE (db)

PERT : Tw=10

MSE (db)
-1
0.1

-1.5
0.05
-2

0
-2.5

-0.05
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 -3
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Number of samples
Number of samples
Figure 16: MSE as a function of sample size for dual receiver Figure 19: MSE as a function of sample size in Scenario B for varying
perturbation system switching speed in multiple ADC structure

Dual Rx with one as a Reference Rx

0.35 Switching Scenario C in multiple ADC structure
0.5
PERT : Time Mux sequence
DMR : Tw=INST
0.3 PERT : Walsh-Func sequence
DMR : Tw=1
0 DMR : Tw=5
0.25 DMR :Tw=10
PERT : Tw=INST
0.2 PERT : Tw=1
-0.5
PERT : Tw=5
MSE (db)

0.15 PERT : Tw=10

MSE (db)

-1
0.1

0.05
-1.5

-2
-0.05

-0.1
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 -2.5
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Number of samples
Number of samples
Figure 17: MSE as a function of sample size for dual receiver Figure 20: MSE as a function of sample size in Scenario C for varying
perturbation system with reference receiver switching speed in multiple ADC structure

Switching Scenario A in multiple ADC strucure

2 Switching Scenario D in multiple ADC structure
1
DMR : Tw=INST
DMR : Tw=INST
DMR : Tw=1
0 0 DMR : Tw=1
DMR : Tw=5
DMR : Tw=5
DMR :Tw=10
-1 DMR :Tw=10
PERT : Tw=INST
-2 PERT : Tw=INST
PERT : Tw=1
PERT : Tw=1
PERT : Tw=5 -2
PERT : Tw=5
PERT : Tw=10
MSE (db)

-4 PERT : Tw=10
MSE (db)

-3

-6 -4

-5
-8

-6
-10
-7

-12
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 -8
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Number of samples
Number of samples
Figure 18: MSE as a function of sample size in Scenario A Figure 21: MSE as a function of sample size in Scenario D for varying
for varying switching speed in multiple ADC structure switching speed in multiple ADC structure
 16
Quantization Scenario A in multiple ADC strucure
0.5 Quantization Scenario D in multiport structure
1
DMR : No Quantization
0 DMR : No Quantization
DMR : 6-Bit Quantization
0 DMR : 6-Bit Quantization
DMR : 7-Bit Quantization
-0.5 DMR : 7-Bit Quantization
DMR : 8-Bit Quantization
DMR : 8-Bit Quantization
DMR : 9-Bit Quantization -1
-1 DMR : 9-Bit Quantization
PERT : No Quantization
PERT : No Quantization
PERT : 6-Bit Quantization
-1.5 -2 PERT : 6-Bit Quantization
PERT : 7-Bit Quantization
MSE (db)

PERT : 7-Bit Quantization

MSE (db)
PERT : 8-Bit Quantization
-2 PERT : 8-Bit Quantization
PERT : 9-Bit Quantization
-3 PERT : 9-Bit Quantization
-2.5
-4
-3

-5
-3.5

-4 -6

-4.5
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 -7
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Number of samples
Number of samples
Figure 22: MSE as a function of sample size in Scenario A Figure 25: MSE as a function of sample size in Scenario D for varying
for varying level of quantization in multiple ADC structure level of quantization in multiple ADC structure

Quantization Scenario B in mulitple ADC strucure

1 Single Rx system
4.85
DMR : No Quantization
PERT : Time Mux sequence
0 DMR : 6-Bit Quantization
4.8 PERT : Walsh-Func sequence
DMR : 7-Bit Quantization
DMR : 8-Bit Quantization
-1 DMR : 9-Bit Quantization 4.75
PERT : No Quantization
-2 PERT : 6-Bit Quantization 4.7
PERT : 7-Bit Quantization
MSE (db)

MSE (db)

PERT : 8-Bit Quantization 4.65

-3 PERT : 9-Bit Quantization

4.6
-4
4.55
-5
4.5
-6
4.45

-7
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 4.4
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Number of samples
Number of samples
Figure 23: MSE as a function of sample size in Scenario B Figure 26: MSE as a function of sample size for single receiver
for varying level of quantization in multiple ADC structure perturbation system in multiple ADC structure

Quantization Scenario C in multiple ADC structure

1 Dual Rx system
4.82
DMR : No Quantization
PERT : Time Mux sequence
DMR : 6-Bit Quantization
0 PERT : Walsh-Func sequence
DMR : 7-Bit Quantization 4.81
DMR : 8-Bit Quantization
DMR : 9-Bit Quantization
-1
PERT : No Quantization 4.8
PERT : 6-Bit Quantization
PERT : 7-Bit Quantization
MSE (db)

-2
MSE (db)

PERT : 8-Bit Quantization 4.79

PERT : 9-Bit Quantization
-3
4.78

-4
4.77

-5
4.76

-6
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 4.75
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Number of samples
Number of samples
Figure 24: MSE as a function of sample size in Scenario C Figure 27: MSE as a function of sample size for dual receiver pertur-
for varying level of quantization in multiple ADC structure bation system in multiple ADC structure
 17
Dual Rx with one as a Reference Rx
4.95 Switching Scenario C using modified algorithm
0
PERT : Time Mux sequence
PERT : Walsh-Func sequence DMR : Tw=INST
DMR : Tw=1
-1
4.9 DMR : Tw=5
DMR :Tw=10
PERT : Tw=INST
-2
PERT : Tw=1
4.85 PERT : Tw=5
MSE (db)

PERT : Tw=10

MSE (db)
-3

4.8 -4

-5
4.75

-6

4.7
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 -7
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Number of samples
Number of samples
Figure 28: MSE as a function of sample size for dual receiver Figure 31: MSE as a function of sample size in Scenario C for varying
perturbation system with reference receiver in multiple ADC switching speed using modified Algorithm
structure
Switching Scenario A using modified algotihm Switching Scenario D using modified algorithm
0 0
DMR : Tw=INST DMR : Tw=INST
DMR : Tw=1 DMR : Tw=1
-1
DMR : Tw=5 DMR : Tw=5
-5 DMR :Tw=10 DMR :Tw=10
PERT : Tw=INST PERT : Tw=INST
-2
PERT : Tw=1 PERT : Tw=1
PERT : Tw=5 PERT : Tw=5
-10 PERT : Tw=10 PERT : Tw=10
MSE (db)
MSE (db)

-3

-4
-15

-5

-20
-6

-25 -7
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Number of samples Number of samples

Figure 29: MSE as a function of sample size in Scenario A Figure 32: MSE as a function of sample size in Scenario D for varying
for varying switching speed using modified Algorithm switching speed using modified Algorithm

Switching Scenario B using modified algorithm Quantization Scenario A using modified Algorithm
0 2
DMR : Tw=INST DMR : No Quantization
DMR : Tw=1 1 DMR : 6-Bit Quantization
-1
DMR : Tw=5 DMR : 7-Bit Quantization
DMR :Tw=10 DMR : 8-Bit Quantization
0
PERT : Tw=INST DMR : 9-Bit Quantization
-2
PERT : Tw=1 PERT : No Quantization
PERT : Tw=5 -1
PERT : 6-Bit Quantization
PERT : Tw=10
MSE (db)

-3 PERT : 7-Bit Quantization

MSE (db)

-2 PERT : 8-Bit Quantization

PERT : 9-Bit Quantization
-4 -3

-4
-5

-5
-6
-6

-7 -7
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Number of samples Number of samples

Figure 30: MSE as a function of sample size in Scenario B Figure 33: MSE as a function of sample size in Scenario A for varying
for varying switching speed using modified Algorithm level of quantization using modified Algorithm
 18
Quantization Scenario B using modified Algorihtm
0
DMR : No Quantization
-1 DMR : 6-Bit Quantization
DMR : 7-Bit Quantization
-2 DMR : 8-Bit Quantization
DMR : 9-Bit Quantization
-3 PERT : No Quantization
PERT : 6-Bit Quantization
-4 PERT : 7-Bit Quantization
MSE (db)

PERT : 8-Bit Quantization

-5 PERT : 9-Bit Quantization

-6

-7

-8

-9

-10
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Number of samples

Figure 34: MSE as a function of sample size in Scenario B

for varying level of quantization using modified Algorithm

Quantization Scenario C using modified algorithm

0
DMR : No Quantization
-2 DMR : 6-Bit Quantization
DMR : 7-Bit Quantization
DMR : 8-Bit Quantization
-4 DMR : 9-Bit Quantization
PERT : No Quantization
-6 PERT : 6-Bit Quantization
PERT : 7-Bit Quantization
MSE (db)

PERT : 8-Bit Quantization

-8 PERT : 9-Bit Quantization

-10

-12

-14

-16
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Number of samples

Figure 35: MSE as a function of sample size in Scenario C

for varying level of quantization using modified Algorithm

Quantization Scenario D using modified Algorithm

0.5
DMR : No Quantization
DMR : 6-Bit Quantization
0
DMR : 7-Bit Quantization
DMR : 8-Bit Quantization
DMR : 9-Bit Quantization
-0.5
PERT : No Quantization
PERT : 6-Bit Quantization
PERT : 7-Bit Quantization
MSE (db)

-1
PERT : 8-Bit Quantization
PERT : 9-Bit Quantization
-1.5

-2

-2.5

-3
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Number of samples

Figure 36: MSE as a function of sample size in Scenario D

for varying level of quantization using modified Algorithm
 19

VI. APPENDIX A APPENDIX B

WEIGHT MATRIX ΨH PROOF OF MSE GRADIENT ESTIMATE


Ow MSE(w)|w=w(k) = g(w(k))

 
1 0 0 0 0 0 The MSE gradient estimate for a single receiver

 0 1 0 0 0 0 
 perturbation system (which is based on CLMS

 0 0 1 0 0 0 
 algorithm) can be obtained by multiplying the array

 0 0 0 1 0 0 
 output and the receiver output, i.e.,
 0 0 0 0 1 0 
0 0 0 0 0 1
     K 
  δ(l) 1 X

1 1 0 0 0 0 g(w(k)) = × P w(k)
 
γ K k=1
 
−j 1 0 0 0 0
 
 
1 0 1 0 0 0
 
 
−j 0 1 0 0 0 where δ(l) is the perturbation sequence, γ is
 
 

 1 0 0 1 0 0 
 a parameter which reflects the size/magnitude of

 −j 0 0 1 0 0 
 perturbation sequence, i.e., K and thus accounts in

 1 0 0 0 1 0 
 considering perturbation noise and P (w(k) is the

 −j 0 0 0 1 0 
 power measured at the output of receiver.

 1 0 0 0 0 1 
 In the above equation, the first term represents

 −j 0 0 0 0 1 
 the array output and the second term represents

 0 1 1 0 0 0 
 the receiver output. To make the perturbation
H
 0 −j 1 0 0 0  algorithm comparable with the dmr algorithm, MSE
Ψ = 

 0 1 0 1 0 0 
 measurement is used instead of power .
 0 −j 0 1 0 0 
  K
0 1 0 0 1 0 δ(l) 1 X  2
i0 (k) − wH
 

0 −j 0 0 1 0
 g(w(k)) = × pert x(k) 



 γ K k=1
 0 1 0 0 0 1 
0 −j 0 0 0 1
 
 

 0 0 1 1 0 0

 The derivate of the above equation w.r.t w is given by
0 0 −j 1 0 0
   
 
∂g(w(k)) δ(l) ∂ 2 H H H

0 0 1 0 1 0
 = i (k) − 2i0 (k)x(k)w + w x(k)x (k)w
∂w
γ ∂w 0
 
0 0 −j 0 1 0
   
δ(l)
 

 0 0 1 0 0 1 
 = 2i0 (k)x(k) + 2wx(k)x (k)H

 0 0 −j 0 0 1 
 γ
 
 0 0 0 1 1 0  δ(l)
  = 2Rw − 2z

 0 0 0 −j 1 0 
 γ

 0 0 0 1 0 1 
 The above gradient estimate can be unbiased,

 0 0 0 −j 0 1 
 i.e., 2Rw by choosing perturbation sequence with
 0 0 0 0 1 1 
suitable desired properties, i.e., orthogonality, zero-
0 0 0 0 −j 1 mean and odd-symmetry.
 20

VII. APPENDIX C

WEIGHT MATRIX
References
FOR EXTENDED ALGORITHMΨH
[1] A. Cantoni, “Application of orthogonal perturbation sequences to adaptive
beamforming,” Antennas and Propagation, IEEE Transactions on, vol. 28,
no. 2, pp. 191–202, 1980.
  [2] L. C. Godara and A. Cantoni, “Analysis of the performance of adaptive
1 0 0 0 0 0 beam forming using perturbation sequences,” Antennas and Propagation,
IEEE Transactions on, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 268–279, 1983.

 0 1 0 0 0 0 
 [3] B. Lawrence and I. N. Psaromiligkos, “Single-port mmse beamforming,”
 0 0 1 0 0 0  in Personal Indoor and Mobile Radio Communications (PIMRC), 2011
  IEEE 22nd International Symposium on, pp. 1557–1561, IEEE, 2011.
 1−j 0 0 j 0 0  [4] H. L. Van Trees, Detection, estimation, and modulation theory. John
1−j
 
 0 0 0 j 0  Wiley & Sons, 2004.
0 0 1−j 0 0 j
 
 
1 1 0 0 0 0
 
 
−j 1 0 0 0 0
 
 
1 0 1 0 0 0
 
 
−1 −j 0 −1 1 0
 
 

 −j 1 0 −1 −1 0 


 −1 0 −j −1 0 1 


 −j 0 1 0 0 0 


 0 1 1 0 0 0 


 0 −j 1 0 0 0 


 −j 0 1 −1 0 −1 


 0 −1 −j 0 −1 1 

H
 0 −j 1 0 −1 −1 
Ψ = 

 1 0 0 1 0 0 


 0 1 0 0 1 0 


 0 0 1 0 0 1 


 0 0 0 1 0 0 

 0 0 0 0 1 0 
0 0 0 0 0 1
 
 
1 1 0 −1 −1 − j 0
 
 
−1 1 0 −1 −j 0
 
 
1 0 1 −1 0 −1 − j
 
 
0 0 0 1 1 0
 
 

 0 0 0 −j 1 0 


 0 0 0 1 0 1 


 −1 0 1 −1 0 −j 


 0 1 1 0 −1 −1 − j 


 0 −1 1 0 −1 −j 


 0 0 0 −j 0 1 

 0 0 0 0 1 1 
0 0 0 0 −j 1