1240
7, JULY 2019
CNN-Based Precoder and Combiner Design in mmWave MIMO Systems
Ahmet M. Elbir
Abstract— Hybrid beamformer design is a crucial stage in
millimeter-wave (mmWave) MIMO systems. In this letter, we pro-
pose a convolutional neural network (CNN) framework for the
joint design of precoder and combiners. The proposed network
accepts the input of channel matrix and gives the output of analog
and baseband beamformers. Previous works are usually based
on the knowledge of steering vectors of array responses which is
not always accurately available in practice. The proposed CNN
framework does not require such a knowledge, and it provides
higher performance in capacity compared with the conventional
greedy- and optimization-based algorithms.
Index Terms— mmWave, MIMO, hybrid beamforming, deep
learning, convolutional neural network.
I. I NTRODUCTION
H YBRID beamforming is a promising architecture to be
used in next generation millimeter wave (mmWave)
MIMO (Multiple Input Multiple Output) systems where
robust beamforming performance is provided with smaller
cost and less number of fully-digital beamformers [1]–[4].
Several methods are proposed to design the hybrid
beamformers [3]–[7]. In [6], a greedy-based approach,
orthogonal matching pursuit (OMP), is proposed where the
analog precoder and combiners are selected from a dictio-
nary of transmit and receive array responses. This algorithm
requires the knowledge of the user direction-of-arrival/aperture
(DOA/DOD) angles to construct such a dictionary. Using
the connection between the optimum and the hybrid beam-
formers, [7] proposes an alternating minimization approach to
estimate the analog and baseband beamformers based on phase
extraction.
The above works provides optimization-based and greedy-
based solutions for hybrid beamforming problem. However
achieving the optimum solution and the computation time
are the main drawbacks of the above techniques. In order to
circumvent this issue, we consider deep learning (DL)-based
techniques for the hybrid beamforming problem [8]. DL
has several advantages such as low computational complex-
ity when solving optimization-based or combinatorial/greedy
search problems and the ability to extrapolate new features
from a limited set of features contained in a training set [9].
A great deal of attention is received for DL-based tech-
niques in communications society for the problems such as
channel estimation [10]–[12] DOA estimation [12], antenna
selection [13], and analog beam selection [14]. An end-to-
end communication scenario is modeled in [15] and [16] by
using auto-encoders where single-input-single-output (SISO)
systems are considered. [17] also uses auto-encoders for the
Manuscript received April 22, 2019; accepted May 6, 2019. Date of
publication May 9, 2019; date of current version July 10, 2019. The associate
editor coordinating the review of this letter and approving it for publication
was J. Choi.
The author is with the Department of Electrical and Electronics Engineering,
Düzce University, Duzce 81620, Turkey (e-mail: ahmetmelbir@gmail.com).
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/LCOMM.2019.2915977
1558-2558 © 2019 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.
See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
IEEE COMMUNICATIONS LETTERS, VOL. 23, NO.
channel state information (CSI) feedback problem. In [14],
a sub-optimum method is proposed based on the support vector
machines (SVMs) for analog beamforming vector selection.
Very recently, a DL based hybrid beamforming is considered
in [18] where only precoder design is considered whereas
joint precoder and combiner design is used in massive MIMO
system where the beamforming is required in both end of
the communication [6]. The proposed network architecture
in [18] is based on multi-layer perceptrons which do not
effectively extract the hidden features inherit in the input
data [9], [13]. In order to achieve feature extraction and obtain
better performance, we propose a convolutional neural network
(CNN) framework for mmWave massive MIMO systems.
In this study, we propose a CNN-based framework with
two CNNs, each of which is dedicated to estimate the analog
precoders and combiners respectively. The CNNs accept the
input of channel matrix and give the beamformer weights at
the output. In order to train the network we generated different
channel realizations with synthetic noise added to each input
data. A decoupled optimization problem is formulated and
solved to obtain the best beamformers providing the highest
spectral efficiency. Using the best analog beamformers, we
construct the input-output pairs of the network. Since the
best beamformers are the optimum solution of the problem,
the proposed CNN framework enjoys better spectral efficiency
and less computation time. Furthermore, our CNN approach
does not require the knowledge of array responses of users’
DOA/DOD angles which are not always accurately available
in practical scenarios.
II. S IGNAL M ODEL AND P ROBLEM F ORMULATION
In this work, we consider a single user mmWave MIMO
communication system with multiple antennas. Let NS be
the number of data streams to be transmitted from the base
station (BS) with NT transmit antennas to the user with NR
antennas. The BS is equipped with NTRF analog phase shifters
RF
with analog beamformer FRF ∈ CNT ×NT and baseband
RF
beamformer FBB ∈ CNT ×NS . Then the transmitted signal
becomes x = FRF FBB s where s ∈ CNS is the symbol
vector desired to be transmitted and E{ssH } = INS /NS .
The analog beamformers are unitary matrices with equal-norm
elements, i.e., [[FRF ]:,i [FRF ]H
:,i ]i,i = 1/NT and we have power
constraint on the transmitter as ||FRF FBB ||F = NS . We can
write the received signal at the NR antennas for a narrowband
block-fading channel as
√
y = ρHFRF FBB s + n, (1)
where y ∈ CNR and ρ is the average received power. n ∈ CNR
denotes the additive white Gaussian noise (AWGN) with
n ∼ CN (0, σn2 INR ) and H ∈ CNR ×NT is the channel
matrix with E{||H||F } = NR NT . In mmWave transmission,
ELBIR: CNN-BASED PRECODER AND COMBINER DESIGN IN mmWAVE MIMO SYSTEMS 1241

the channel can be represented by Saleh-Valenzuela (SV) where FRF and WRF denote the feasible sets of analog
model [19] where the clustered channel model is used as the beamformers which obey the constraints defined for FRF
contribution of Nc clusters of Nray paths as and WRF . Obtaining the real-time solution to the prob-
lem in (4) is impractical due to the complexity of several
Nray
Nc 
 (ij) (ij) (ij) (ij) matrix variables. To cast the problem in (4) more effec-
H=γ αij gR (ΘR )gT (ΘT )aR (ΘR )aH
T (ΘT ), tively, we first define the sets FRF and WRF . Note that
i=1 j=1
the analog beamformers FRF , WRF are related with the
(ij) (ij)
where ΘR
(ij) (ij)
= (φR , θR ) and ΘT
(ij) (ij)
= (φT , θT )
(ij) (ij) array responses aT (ΘT ), aR (ΘR ) through linear trans-
respectively denote the angle of arrivals and angle of formation [6]. Hence the feasible RF beamformer sets can
(1) (Q ) (q )
departures. We denote the angular parameters φ and θ be formed as FRF = {FRF , . . . , FRFF } where FRFF =
(ij)
as the aT (ΘT ), i = 1, . . . ,Nc , j = 1, . . . , Nray for qF =
 azimuth and the elevation angles respectively. N
γ = NT NR /(Nc Nray ) is the normalization factor and αij 1, . . . , QF . QF = N path RF is the number RF precoder candi-
T
is the complex channel gain associated with the ith scattering dates and Npath = Nc Nray . The feasible set for RF combiner
cluster and jth path for i = 1, . . . , Nc and j = 1, . . . , Nray . (1)
is similarly defined as WRF = {WRF , . . . , WRFW } where
(Q )
(ij) (ij)
gR (ΘR ) and gT (ΘT ) are the antenna element gains for (qW )
WRF = aR (Θ
(ij)
(ij)  R ), i = 1, . . . , Nc , j = 1, . . . , Nray and
receive and transmit antennas respectively. aR (ΘR ) and Npath
(ij) QW = N RF . Now we can present the joint precoder and
aT (ΘT ) are NR ×1 and NT ×1 steering vectors representing R
combiner design problem as follows
the array responses at the receiver and transmitters
respectively. The nth element of the steering vector  ρ −1 H
q̄F , q̄W = argmax log2 INS + Λ WBB WH
(ij) (ij)
aR (ΘR ) is given as [aR (ΘR )]n = exp{− 2π T (ij)
λ pn r(ΘR )},
qF ,qW NS n RF

T  
where pn = [xn , yn , zn ] is the position of the nth receive × HFRF FBB FH H H
BB FRF H WRF WBB ,

(ij)
antenna in Cartesian coordinate system and r(ΘR ) = (q ) (q )
(ij) (ij) (ij) (ij) (ij) T s.t.: FRF = FRFF , WRF = WRFW ,
[sin(φR ) cos(θR ), sin(φR ) sin(θR ), cos(θR )] . The
(ij)
transmit side steering vector aT (ΘT ) can be defined in a FBB = (FH
RF FRF )
−1 H
FRF Fopt ,
(ij)
similar way as for aR (ΘR ). In order to generate the labels WBB = (WH RF ΛWRF )
−1
(WH RF ΛW ), (5)
opt

(precoder and combiners) the proposed CNN frameworks

requires the perfect CSI. However, we use imperfect channel where q̄F , q̄W represent the selected elements in the feasible
matrices both in the training and testing stages. sets. Λ is the covariance of the array output in (1) which is
The transmitted signal is received and processed by analog given by Λ = NρS HFRF FBB FH H H 2
BB FRF H + σn INRS . F
opt
and
opt
and baseband combiners as ỹ = WH H
BB WRF y, i.e.,
W are the optimum baseband beamformers which can be
√ obtained from the singular value decomposition (SVD) of the
ỹ = ρWH H
BB WRF HFRF FBB s + WBB WRF n,
H H
(2) channel matrix. Let U ∈ CNR ×rank(H) and V ∈ CNT ×rank(H) be
RF the left and the right singular value matrices of H respectively,
where WRF ∈ CNR ×NR is the analog combiner with where the SVD of H ∈ CNR ×NT is H = UΣVH where Σ
the constrained [[WRF ]:,i [WRF ]H
:,i ]i,i = 1/NR and WBB ∈ is rank(H) × rank(H) matrix composed of the singular values
RF
NR ×NS
C denotes the baseband combiner matrix. By assum- of H in descending order. By decomposing Σ and V as Σ =
ing that the Gaussian symbols are transmitted through the diag{Σ(1) , Σ(2) }, V = [V(1) , V(2) ] where V(1) ∈ CNT ×NS
mmWave channel, we can define the spectral efficiency and V(2) ∈ CNT ×NR −NS respectively, one can readily select
achieved by the hybrid beamforming [3]–[6] as the unconstrained precoder as Fopt = V(1) [6]. Using the
 ρ −1 H unconstrained beamformer Fopt , Wopt can be computed as [20]
RHYB = log2 INS + Λ WBB WH RF H
NS n  1  optH H opt NS σn2 −1 optH H H

× FRF FBB FH H H  Wopt = H HF + .
BB FRF H WRF WBB , (3) F I NS F H
ρ ρ
where Λ= 2 H H
n σn WBB WRF WRF WBB ∈ C
NS ×NS
is the covari- The solution of (5) requires to visit QF QW nodes which is
ance matrix of the noise term in (2) after combining. computationally prohibitive. In order to reduce the complexity,
Hence the aim in this work is to estimate the hybrid (5) is decomposed into two different problems where precoders
beamformers FRF , WRF , FBB and WRF that maximize the (FRF and FBB ) and combiners (WRF and WBB ) are sepa-
spectral efficiency as in (3) given the channel matrix H. rately estimated. By doing so, the complexity is reduced from
QF QW to QF + QW . In order to find the precoders we solve
III. H YBRID B EAMFORMER D ESIGN
the following problems, i.e.,
The optimization problem for joint estimation of hybrid  ρ H H
beamformers F̂RF , F̂BB , ŴRF , ŴBB can be stated as follows q̄F = argmax log2 |INS + 2
(Wopt Wopt )−1 Wopt
qF NS σn

argmax RHYB × HFRF FBB FH H H
BB RF H W | ,
F opt
FRF ,FBB ,WRF ,WBB
(q )
s.t.: FRF ∈ FRF , ||FRF FBB ||2F = NS , s.t.: FRF = FRFF , FBB = (FH
RF FRF )
−1 H
FRF Fopt ,
WRF ∈ WRF , (4) (6)
1242 IEEE COMMUNICATIONS LETTERS, VOL. 23, NO. 7, JULY 2019

Algorithm 1 Training Data Generation

Input: L, N , NT , NR , NTRF , NRRF , SNRTRAIN .
Output: Training data DF and DW .
(n) N (n) N
1: Generate {H(n) }N n=1 with {FRF }n=1 and {WRF }n=1 .
2: for 1 ≤ n ≤ N and 1 ≤ l ≤ L do
3: [H(l,n) ]i,j ∼ CN ([H(l) ]i,j , σTRAIN
2
).
(qF ,l,n)
4: Find q̄F by solving (6) for FRF , 1 ≤ qF ≤ QF .
(l,n) (l,n) (q̄ ,l,n)
5: Construct F̂RF and FBB from FRFF .
(qW ,l,n)
6: Find q̄W by solving (7) for WRF , 1 ≤ qW ≤ QW .
Fig. 1. The proposed CNN framework for precoder (CNNF at the top) and (l,n) (l,n) (q̄ ,l,n)
combiner design (CNNW at the bottom). 7: Construct ŴRF and WBB from WRFW .
(l,n)
 8: [[X ]:,:,1 ]i,j = |[H(l,n) ]i,j |.
ρ
q̄W = argmax log2 |INS + 2
(WH H
BB WRF WRF WBB 9: [[X
(l,n)
]:,:,2 ]i,j = Re{[H(l,n) ]i,j } .
qW N S σn (l,n)
H  10: [[X ]:,:,3 ]i,j = Im{[H(l,n) ]i,j } ∀ij.
× WH H
RF WBB )
−1
HFopt Fopt HH WRF WBB | , 11:
(l,n) (l,n) (l,n)
zF = ∠vec{F̂RF }, zW = ∠vec{ŴRF }.
(l,n)

(q )
s.t.: WRF = WRFW ,
WBB = (WH
RF ΛWRF )
−1
(WH RF ΛW ),
opt
ρ H
Λ= HFopt Fopt HH + σn2 INR . (7)
NS
Once (6) and (7) are solved, the analog beamformers are
(q̄ ) (q̄ )
constructed as F̂RF = FRFF and ŴRF = WRFW . The
baseband beamformers can also be obtained accordingly.
IV. CNN-BASED A PPROACH
In this section, we present our CNN framework for joint
precoder and combiner design which is shown in Fig. 1.
The proposed network is composed of two CNNs with 8 layers
which have identical structures except the last layer. The first
layer is the input layer of size NR × NT × 3 with c = 3
channels. The first channel of the input is the element-wise
absolute value of the channel matrix as [[X]:,:,1 ]i,j = |[H]i,j |.
The second and the third channels are defined as the real and
the imaginary parts of the channel matrix as [[X]:,:,2 ]i,j =
Re{[H]i,j } and [[X]:,:,3 ]i,j = Im{[H]i,j }. The second and third
layer are the convolutional layers with 32 filters of size 2 × 2.
The fourth and sixth layers are fully connected layers with
1024 units. There are dropout layers after each fully connected
layers (the fifth and seventh layers) with %50 probability.
The output layer of CNNF is of size NT NTRF × 1 which is
the vectorized version of the phases of FRF . Similarly, the
size of the output layer of CNNW is NR NRRF × 1. The
complexity of a CNN is directly proportional with the number
of parameters which, in our case, calculated as C 2 (2Ncv (wh+
50
1) + 2(Nf c + 1) · 100 ) [21]. Here C = 3 is the number of
channels, w = h = 2 is the filter size, Ncv = 32 is the
number of filters, Nf c = 1024 is the number of units in the
fully connected layer for %50 dropout probability. Hence the
CNN structure in Fig. 1 has 12105 parameters.
In data generation, N different realizations of channel matri-
ces H(n) for different user locations are generated together
(n) (n)
with the corresponding sets FRF and WRF . Then for each
realization, L noisy channel matrices are obtained where the
added element-wise synthetic noise is defined by SNRTRAIN =
|[H] |2
20 log10 ( σ2 i,j ). To account for the changes in the wireless
TRAIN
environment, we use three different SNRTRAIN levels. Hence
the total size of the training input data becomes NR × NT ×
12: end for n, l
13: Training data for CNNF and CNNW is obtained as
(1,1) (L,N )
DF = ((X(1,1) , zF ), . . . , (X(L,N ) , zF )),
(1,1) (L,N )
DW = ((X(1,1) , zW ), . . . , (X(L,N ) , zW )).
3 × 3N L. In order to obtain the output data the problems in
(6) and (7) are solved ∀n, l. Then the output data of each
network is obtained. We summarize the algorithmic steps of
the training data generation in Algorithm 1.
V. N UMERICAL S IMULATIONS
In this section, we evaluate the performance of our CNN
framework (referred to as HBDL, Hybrid Beamforming via
Deep Learning) and compare it with the state-of-the-art tech-
niques such as SOMP [6] and PE-Alt-Min [7]. Uniform square
arrays are considered with half wavelength spacing with NR =
NT = 36 antennas. The number of analog beamformers are
NRRF = NTRF = 4. The feasible sets FRF , WRF are used
for training only, and the output from CNN can be directly
used for analog beamforming since the analog beamformer
does not have to lie in the set of array response vectors.
The CNNs are fed with the training data generated for N =
L = 100. For each channel matrix realization, the propagation
environment is modeled with Nc = 4 and Nray = 5 for each
2
clusters with σΘ = 5◦ for all transmit and receive azimuth
and elevation angles which are uniform randomly selected
from the interval [−60◦, 60◦ ] and [−20◦, 20◦ ] respectively.
The proposed network is realized in MATLAB on a PC
with 768-core GPU. Stochastic gradient decent algorithm is
used to update the network parameters with the learning rate
0.005 and mini-batch size 500 for 200 epochs. As a loss
function, we use the negative log-likelihood or cross-entropy
loss [9]. In the training process, 70% and 30% of all data
generated are selected as the training and validation datasets,
respectively. Validation aids in hyperparameter tuning during
the training phase to avoid the network simply memorizing the
training data rather than learning general features for accurate
prediction with new data. The validation data is used to test the
performance of the network in the simulations for JT = 100
Monte Carlo trials. In order to prevent the similarity between
the test data and the training data we also add synthetic
ELBIR: CNN-BASED PRECODER AND COMBINER DESIGN IN mmWAVE MIMO SYSTEMS
Fig. 2. Spectral efficiency versus SNR for (a) NR = NT = 25, NS = 1; (b) NR = NT = 36, NS = 2; (c) NR = NT = 36, NS = 3.
noise to the test data where the SNR in testing is defined
|[H] |2
similar to SNRTRAIN as SNRTEST = 20 log10 ( σ2i,j ) and
TEST
SNRTRAIN ∈ {10, 15, 20}dB is selected.
In Fig. 2, the spectral efficiency for different algorithms is
presented for NS = {1, 2, 3} and SNRTEST = 10dB. As it
is seen, HBDL provides better performance as compared to
the optimization-based method PE-Alt-Min and greedy-based
algorithm SOMP. The performance plot “Best” denotes the
performance of the test data without prediction. We observe
that HBDL is very close to the best performance as well
as the fully-digital beamformer. HBDL effectively selects the
analog beamformers from the feasible sets which maximizes
the spectral efficiency. The effectiveness of HBDL is attributed
to the best selection of analog beamformers which are the
optimum solution of (4) through the SVD of the channel
matrix [6]. SOMP has poor performance due the fact that it
cannot select the “best” set of array responses from the dic-
tionary. While PE-Alt-Min has sufficiently good performance,
HBDL performs better even when the output of PE-Alt-Min
is inserted to the feasible sets used for HBDL.
To compare the computation time of the algorithms we
consider the same settings and observe that HBDL spends
about 0.020s to compute both precoder and combiners whereas
SOMP and PE-Alt-Min take about 0.450s and 1.200s respec-
tively.
VI. C ONCLUSIONS
In this work, a CNN framework is proposed for the joint
estimation of precoder and combiners in hybrid beamform-
ing problem. We show that the proposed network archi-
tecture provides better spectral efficiency as compared to
the optimization-based and greedy-based algorithm. In future
work, we reserve the case when the training data is small
where transfer learning-like approaches can be developed.
R EFERENCES
[1] J. G. Andrews et al., “What will 5G be?” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun.,
vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 1065–1082, Jun. 2014.
[2] F. Rusek et al., “Scaling up MIMO: Opportunities and challenges with
very large arrays,” IEEE Signal Process. Mag., vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 40–60,
Jan. 2013.
[3] A. Alkhateeb, O. El Ayach, G. Leus, and R. W. Heath, Jr., “Channel
estimation and hybrid precoding for millimeter wave cellular systems,”
IEEE J. Sel. Topics Signal Process., vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 831–846,
Oct. 2014.
1243
[4] A. Alkhateeb, G. Leus, and R. W. Heath, Jr., “Limited feedback hybrid
precoding for multi-user millimeter wave systems,” IEEE Trans. Wireless
Commun., vol. 14, no. 11, pp. 6481–6494, Nov. 2015.
[5] A. Alkhateeb, O. El Ayach, G. Leus, and R. W. Heath, Jr., “Hybrid
precoding for millimeter wave cellular systems with partial channel
knowledge,” in Proc. Inf. Theory Appl. Workshop (ITA), Feb. 2013,
pp. 1–5.
[6] O. El Ayach, S. Rajagopal, S. Abu-Surra, Z. Pi, and R. W. Heath, Jr.,
“Spatially sparse precoding in millimeter wave MIMO systems,” IEEE
Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 1499–1513, Mar. 2014.
[7] X. Yu, J.-C. Shen, J. Zhang, and K. B. Letaief, “Alternating minimization
algorithms for hybrid precoding in millimeter wave MIMO systems,”
IEEE J. Sel. Topics Signal Process., vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 485–500,
Apr. 2016.
[8] D. Yu and L. Deng, “Deep learning and its applications to signal and
information processing [exploratory DSP],” IEEE Signal Process. Mag.,
vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 145–154, Jan. 2011.
[9] Y. LeCun, Y. Bengio, and G. Hinton, “Deep learning,” Nature, vol. 521,
pp. 436–444, May 2015.
[10] A. Alkhateeb, S. Alex, P. Varkey, Y. Li, Q. Qu, and D. Tujkovic,
“Deep learning coordinated beamforming for highly-mobile millime-
ter wave systems,” Apr. 2018, arXiv:1804.10334. [Online]. Available:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1804.10334
[11] H. Ye, G. Y. Li, and B.-H. Juang, “Power of deep learning for channel
estimation and signal detection in OFDM systems,” IEEE Wireless
Commun. Lett., vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 114–117, Feb. 2018.
[12] H. Huang, J. Yang, H. Huang, Y. Song, and G. Gui, “Deep learn-
ing for super-resolution channel estimation and doa estimation based
massive MIMO system,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 67, no. 9,
pp. 8549–8560, Sep. 2018.
[13] A. M. Elbir, K. V. Mishra, and Y. C. Eldar, “Cognitive radar antenna
selection via deep learning,” IET Radar, Sonar Navigat., to be published.
[14] Y. Long, Z. Chen, J. Fang, and C. Tellambura, “Data-driven-based analog
beam selection for hybrid beamforming under mm-wave channels,”
IEEE J. Sel. Topics Signal Process., vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 340–352,
May 2018.
[15] S. Dörner, S. Cammerer, J. Hoydis, and S. T. Brink, “Deep learning
based communication over the air,” IEEE J. Sel. Topics Signal Process.,
vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 132–143, Feb. 2018.
[16] V. Raj and S. Kalyani, “Backpropagating through the air: Deep learning
at physical layer without channel models,” IEEE Commun. Lett., vol. 22,
no. 11, pp. 2278–2281, Nov. 2018.
[17] C.-K. Wen, W.-T. Shih, and S. Jin, “Deep learning for massive MIMO
CSI feedback,” IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett., vol. 7, no. 5, pp. 748–751,
Oct. 2018.
[18] H. Huang, Y. Song, J. Yang, G. Gui, and F. Adachi, “Deep-learning-
based millimeter-wave massive MIMO for hybrid precoding,” IEEE
Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 68, no. 3, pp. 3027–3032, Mar. 2019.
[19] R. Méndez-Rial, C. Rusu, A. Alkhateeb, N. Gonzalez-Prelcicy, and
R. W. Heath, Jr., “Channel estimation and hybrid combining for
mmWave: Phase shifters or switches?” in Proc. IEEE Inf. Theory Appl.
Workshop, Feb. 2015, pp. 90–97.
[20] T. Kailath, B. Hassibi, and A. H. Sayed, Linear Estimation.
Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA: Prentice-Hall, 2000.
[21] K. Simonyan and A. Zisserman, “Very deep convolutional networks for
large-scale image recognition,” Sep. 2014, arXiv:1409.1556. [Online].
Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1409.1556