Cell-Free and User-Centric Massive MIMO at
Millimeter Wave Frequencies
Mario Alonzo, and Stefano Buzzi

arXiv:1710.07817v2 [] 5 Nov 2017

Department of Electrical and Information Engineering
University of Cassino and Lazio Meridionale, Cassino, Italy

Abstract—In a cell-free (CF) massive MIMO architecture a very large number of distributed access points
(APs) simultaneously and jointly serves a much smaller
number of mobile stations (MSs); a variant of the cellfree technique is the user-centric (UC) approach, wherein
each AP just decodes a reduced set of MSs, practically
the ones that are received best. This paper introduces
and analyzes the CF and UC architectures at millimeter
wave (mmWave) frequencies. First of all, a multiuser
clustered channel model is introduced in order to account
for the correlation among the channels of nearby users;
then, an uplink multiuser channel estimation scheme is
described along with low-complexity hybrid analog/digital
beamforming architectures. Interestingly, in the proposed
scheme no channel estimation is needed at the MSs, and
the beamforming schemes used at the MSs are channelindependent and have a very simple structure. Numerical
results show that the considered architectures provide good
performance, especially in lightly loaded systems, with the
UC approach outperforming the CF one.

I. I NTRODUCTION
Future fifth-generation (5G) wireless systems will
heavily rely on the use of large-scale antenna arrays,
a.k.a. massive MIMO, and of carrier frequencies above
10GHz, the so called mmWave frequencies [1]. For conventional sub-6 GHz frequencies, a new communications
architecture, named “Cell Free” (CF) massive MIMO,
has been recently introduced in [2], [3], in order to
alleviate the cell-edge problem and thus increase the
system performance of unlucky users that happen to be
located very far from their serving access point (AP). In
the CF architecture, instead of having few base stations
with massive antenna arrays, a very large number of
simple APs randomly and densely deployed serve a
much smaller number of mobile stations (MSs). In the
CF architecture described in [2], [3], single-antenna APs
and MSs are considered, all the APs serve all the MSs,
all the APs are connected through a backhaul link to a
central processing units (CPU), but every AP performs
locally channel estimation, and channel estimates are not
sent to the CPU, but are locally exploited. In [4] the CF
architecture is generalized to the case in which both the
APs and the MSs are equipped with multiple antennas
and, mostly important a user-centric (UC) variant of the
CF approach is introduced, wherein each APs, instead of
978-1-5386-3531-5/17/$31.00 c 2017 IEEE

serving all the MSs in the considered area, just serves
the ones that he receives best. The results in [4] show
that the UC approach provides savings on the required
backhaul capacity and, also, provides better data-rates to
the vast majority of the users.
This paper, to the best of our knowledge, is the first
to consider the CF and UC architectures for mmWave
frequencies. The contribution of the paper can be summarized as follows. First of all, we introduce a multiuser
mmWave channel model that permits taking into account
channel correlation for close users. Building upon the
well-known clustered channel model [5] widely used
at mmWave frequencies, we extend this model to take
into account the fact that if several APs and MSs are
in the same area, their channels must be build using
the same set of scatterers; adopting this model, users
that are very close will receive beams with very close
direction of arrival and so channel correlation for nearby
users is intrinsically taken into account. Then, we study
the UC and CF approaches at mmWave frequencies; we
assume that both the APs and MSs are equipped with
multiple antennas, use hybrid analog-digital partial zeroforcing beamforming at the APs, while a very simple 01 beamforming architecture, independent of the channel
estimate, is used at the MSs. Our results are encouraging
since they show that, in the region of interest for the
transmitted powers, the considered system is able to
provide good performance, with the UC approach outperforming the CF one. In particular, in a lightly loaded
system, taking into account channel estimation errors
and using low-complexity beamforming structures, the
downlink (uplink) achievable rate-per-user is about 800
(200) Mbit/s, using a bandwidth of 200 MHz. For heavily
loaded systems, instead, some performance degradation
is observed, and thus more sophisticated beamforming
structures and transceiver algorithms are needed to restore the system performance.
This paper is organized as follows. Next Section is
devoted to the discussion of the used system and channel
model; Section III deals with the description of the
communication protocol and of the data detection and
channel estimation algorithms, while Section IV contains
numerical results. Finally, concluding remarks are given
in Section V.

II. S YSTEM M ODEL
We consider a square area of size 250 × 250 sqm,
where K MSs and M APs are randomly located. The
APs are connected by means of a backhaul network to
a central processing unit (CPU) wherein data-decoding
is performed. Communications take place on the same
frequency band; downlink and uplink are separated
through time-division-duplex (TDD)1 . The communication protocol is made of three different phases: uplink
training, downlink data transmission and uplink data
transmission. During the uplink training phase, the MSs
send pilot sequences to the APs and each AP estimates
the channels; during the second phase the APs use the
channel estimates to perform pre-coding and transmit
the data symbols; finally, in the third phase the MSs
send uplink data symbols to the APs. While in the CF
approach all the APs simultaneously serve all the MSs
(a fully-cooperative scenario), in the UC approach each
AP serves a pre-determined number of MSs, say N , and
in particular the ones that he receives best.
A. Channel model
We assume that each AP (MS) is equipped with a
uniform linear array (ULA) with NAP (NM S ) elements.
The (NAP × NM S )-dimensional matrix Hk,m denotes
the channel matrix between the k-th user and the mth AP. According to the widely used clustered channel
model for mmWave frequencies (see [5] and references
therein), Hk,m can be expressed as
Hk,m=γ

N
ray
cl N
P
P

αi,l

i=1 l=1

p

AP
MS
L(ri,l )aAP (θi,l,k,m
)aH
M S (θi,l,k,m )

+HLOS ,
(1)
where Ncl is the number of clusters, Nray is the number
of the rays that we consider for
s each cluster, γ is a
NAP NM S
, HLOS is
normalization factor defined as
Ncl Nray
the line-of-sight (LOS) component, αi,l is the complex
path gain distributed as CN (0, σ 2 ) where σ 2 = 1, L(ri,l )
is the attenuation related to the path (i, j), aAP and aM S
are the ULA array responses at the m-th AP and at the
k-th MS, respectively, and they depend on the angles of
AP
MS
arrival and departure, θi,l,k,m
and θi,l,k,m
, relative to the
(i, l)-th path of the channel between the k-th MS and
the m-th AP. The path-loss is defined as [6]


 
bc
4π
L(r) = −20 log10
−10n 1+
log10 (r)−Xσ ,
λ
λf0
(2)
wherein n is the path loss exponent, Xσ is the shadow
fading term in logarithmic units with zero mean and
σ 2 -variance, and f0 is a fixed frequency (see also
table I). The HLOS in (1) is written as2 HLOS =
1 In

TDD the uplink channel is the reciprocal of downlink channel.
the ease of notation we omit the pedices k, m.

2 For

Scenario
Model Parameters
UMi Street Canyon LOS
n=1.98, σ=3.1dB
UMi Street Canyon NLOS
n=3.19, σ=8.2dB
UMi Open Square LOS
n=2.89, σ=7.1dB
UMi Open Square NLOS
n=1.73, σ=3.02dB
Table I
PARAMETERS FOR PATHLOSS MODEL

p
√
AP
MS
I(d) NAP NM S ejη L(d)aAP (θLOS
)aH
M S (θLOS ). In
the above equation, η ∼ U(0, 2π), I(d) is a 0-1 random
variate indicating if a LOS link exists between the
transmitter and the receiver, and d is the link length.
Denoting by p the probability that ILOS (d) = 1,
we have, 
for theUMi (Urban Microcellular) scenarios:
p = min

20
d ,1

d

d

(1 − e− 39 ) + e− 39 . So far, nothing

has been said about the number of scatterers and their
positions. While usually for every APMS pairs, a random
set of scatterers is considered to contribute to the channel
matrix (1), in this paper, in order to model the possible
channel correlation when the devices are closely spaces,
we consider the same set of scatterers for the generation
of all the channels. In particular, we assume that, in
the considered 250 × 250 sqm. area, there are a total
of 25.000 clusters (corresponding to a cluster density
of 0.4 cluster/sqm.), and each cluster contributes with
3 rays. Given these clusters, in order to generate the
generic channel Hk,m between the k-th MS and the mth AP, we consider as active only those clusters falling
in an ellipse built arounf the position of the MS and the
AP: this way we exclude far clusters from contributing
to the channel. Further details on the multiuser channel
generation procedure are omitted due to lack of space
and will be reported in an extended version of this paper.
III. T HE COMMUNICATION PROTOCOL
In the following, we assume that each MSs employs a
very simple 0-1 beamforming structure; in particular, the
(NM S ×P )-dimensional beamformer user at the k-th MS
is denoted by Lk and is defined as Lk = IP ⊗ 1NM S /P ,
with ⊗ denoting Kronecker product and 1NM S /P an all1 vector of length NM S /P . Otherwise stated, we assume
that the MS receive antennas are divided in P disjoint
groups of NM S /P elements, and the data collected at
the antennas of each group are simply summed together.
It is APs’ task, based on the uplink channel estimates
and exploiting the TDD channel reciprocity, to ensure
that the summed samples are, at least approximately,
aligned in phase. We describe now the three phases of
the communication protocol.
A. Uplink training
During the uplink training the MSs transmit pilot
sequences in order to enable channel estimation at the
APs. Let τc be the length of the channel coherence time
and τp be the length of uplink training phase, both in

discrete time samples. Of course we must have τp < τc .
We define by Φk ∈ C P ×τp the matrix containing on
its rows the pilot sequences sent by the k-th MS. We
assume that Φk ΦH
k = IP , i.e. the rows of Φk are
orthogonal, but no orthogonality is required for the pilot
sequences assigned to other MSs3 . The received signal
at the m-th AP in the τp signaling intervals devoted to
uplink training can be cast in the following NAP × τp K √
P
pk Hk,m Lk Φk + Wm ,
dimensional matrix Ym =
k=1

where Wm is the matrix of thermal noise samples, whose
2
entries are assumed to be i.i.d. CN (0, σw
) RVs. Letting
now Sk,m = Hk,m Lk , at the m-th AP , an estimate for
the quantities {Sk,m }K
k=1 can be obtained as follows:
bk,m = √1 Ym ΦH = Hk,m Lk +
S
k
pk
r
K
X
pl
1
Hl,m Ll Φl ΦH
Wm ΦH
k + √
k .
pk
pk
l=1,l6=k

beamformers as the MSs to transmit to, and only one
analog beamformer, that will be used to transmit jointly
to all the users.
1) The CF approach: In this case, all the APs can
communicate with all the MSs, so the transmitted signal
from the m-th AP in the n-th sample interval is sCF
m (n) =
K q
P
DL,CF DL DL
DL
ηm,k Qk,m xk (n), where xk (n) is the data
k=1

DL,CF
symbol intended for the k-th MS, and ηm,k
is a scalar
coefficient taking into account the transmit power and
PT
DL,CF
. Note
it is defined as ηm,k
=
DL
H
Ktr(Qk,m (QDL
k,m ) )
that we are assuming here that, similarly to [4], each
AP uniformly divides its power among all the users, and
the use of power control rule is left for future work. The
k−th MS receives the following (NM S ×1)-dimensional
vector:
M
X
CF
rCF
HH
k,m sm (n) + zk (n) =
k (n) =
m=1

(3)
=

The estimation must be performed in all APs, i.e. for
all m = 1, . . . , M and for all k = 1, . . . , K. Of course,
more sophisticated channel estimation schemes can be
applied but here we are targeting an extremely simple
system processing.
B. Downlink data transmission
After the first phase, the generic m-th AP has an
estimate of the quantities Sk,m , for all k = 1, . . . , K.
In order to transmit data on the downlink a zero-forcing
precoder is considered. In particular, denoting by Qk,m
the beamformer at the m-th AP for transmitting at the
H
k-th MS, we require that Sbk,m
Qk,m = IP and that
H
b
Sj,m Qk,m is zero, for all j 6= k. Of course these conditions can be verified only if the number of interfering
directions KP −1 is smaller than the number of antennas
at the APs. When this condition is not fulfilled perfect
interference cancellation cannot be achieved.
The previosuly described beamforming matrix is a
fully-digital (FD) one, which presumes the use of a
number of RF chains equal to the number of transmit
antennas. It is well-known that at mmWave frequencies
hardware complexity constraints usually prevent the use
of FD architectures, and thus hybrid (HY) beamforming
structures have been proposed. In this paper we exploit
the Block Coordinate Descent algorithm [7] in order
to decompose our beamformer in the cascade of a
FD one, represented by a (P × P )-dimensional matrix
and of a analog one, represented by a (NAP × P )dimensional matrix whose entries have all constant norm.
At the generic m-th AP, we will have as many digital
3 Of course, when KP ≤ τ it would be possible to assign to all
p
the MSs mutually orthogonal pilot sequences. In this paper, however,
we assume that the pilot sequences are binary random sequences, and
we just require that each matrix Φk has orthogonal rows.

Mq
X

DL,CF H
DL
ηm,k
Hk,m QDL
k,m xk (n)+

l=1,l6=km=1

m=1

q

K
M
X
X

DL,CF H
DL
ηm,l
Hk,m QDL
l,m xl (n)

+ zk (n),
(4)

where zk (n) is the additive thermal noise distributed as
CN (0, σz2 ). A soft estimate of the k-th MS data symbol
DL,CF
CF
is thus formed as b
xk
(n) = LH
k rk (n).
2) The UC approach: In this case the APs are assumed to serve a pre-determined, fixed number of MSs,
say N ; in particular, we assume that the generic m-th
AP serves the N MSs whose channels have the largest
Frobenious norms. We denote by K(m) the set of MSs
served by the m-th AP. Given the sets K(m), for all
m = 1, . . . , M , we can define the set M(k) , {m : k ∈
K(m)} of the APs that communicate with the k-th user.
In this case, the transmitted signal
from the m-th AP
P q DL,U C DL DL
UC
is written as sm (n) =
ηm,k Qk,m xk (n),
k∈K(m)
DL,U C
where ηm,k
is now defined as:

Pt

, k ∈ K(m)
DL
DL
DL,U C
ηm,k
= | K(m) | tr(Qk,m (Qk,m )H )

0,
k∈
/ K(m)

The received signal at the k-th MS is expressed now as:
M
P
C
UC
rU
HH
k,m sm (n) + zk (n) =
k (n) =
m=1
q
P
DL,U C H
DL
ηm,k
Hk,m QDL
=
k,m xk (n)+

+

m∈M(k)
K
P

P

l=1,l6=k m∈M(l)

q

DL,U C H
DL
ηm,l
Hk,m QDL
l,m xl (n) + zk (n),

(5)
where the NM S -dimensional vector zk (n) represents the
thermal noise at the k-th MS, and it is modeled as i.i.d.

Figure 1. Average downlink achievable rate per user versus transmit
power. System parameters: M = 100, K = 5, NAP × NM S =
16 × 8, P = 2, N = 3.

Figure 2. Average uplink achievable rate per user versus transmit
power. System parameters: M = 100, K = 5, NAP × NM S =
16 × 8, P = 2, N = 3.

CN (0, σz2 ). Then it is possible to obtain a soft estimate
DL,U C
of the data symbol xDL
(n) =
k (n) at k-th MS as x̂k
H UC
Lk rk (n).
C. Uplink data transmission
The third phase of the communication protocol
amounts to uplink data transmission. We denote by
L
xU
k (n) the P -dimensional data vector to be transmitted
by the k-th MS in the n-th sample time; the corresponding signal received at the m-th AP is expressed as:
ym (n) =

K q
X

L
ηkU L Hk,m Lk xU
k (n) + wm (n)

(6)

k=1

where ηkU L =

PtU L
,
tr(LH
k Lk )

and PtU L = 1 is the uplink

transmitted power.
1) CF approach: in this case, each AP forms the
statistic ỹm,k (n) = QH
k,m ym (n), ∀k. Then each AP
sends to the CPU the vectors ỹm,k (n) via the backhaul
link, and the CPU forms the following soft estimate of
the data vectors transmitted by th k-th MS:
L
x̂U
k (n) =

M
X

ỹm,k (n),

k = 1, . . . , K.

(7)

m=1

2) UC approach: in this case the signal transmitted
by the k-th MS is decoded only by the APs belonging
to the set M(k). Accordingly, the CPU performs the
following soft estimate:
X
L,U C
x̂U
=
ỹm,k (n), k = 1, . . . , K,
(8)
k
m∈M(k)

Figure 3. Average downlink achievable rate per user versus transmit
power. System parameters: M = 100, K = 20, NAP × NM S =
16 × 8, P = 2, N = 3.

IV. N UMERICAL R ESULTS
As a measure of system performance we use the
average achievable rate-per-user, measured in Mbit/s.
We consider a carrier frequency f0 = 73 GHz and a
bandwidth B = 200MHz. The scenario is the UMi Open
Square; the additive noise has a power spectral density of
-174 dBm/Hz, the receiver noise figure is F = 6 dB. We
assume that there are M = 100 APs randomly deployed,
and each AP has NAP = 16 antennas. The MSs have
NM S = 8 antennas; a lightly loaded scenario (K = 5)
and a heavy loaded scenario (K = 20) is considered
for performance evaluation. The considered multiplexing
order is P = 2. We show results for the case of imperfect
CSI (ICSI) and perfect CSI (PCSI), for the CF case and
for the UC case; in the UC case, we have taken N = 1,
for the case K = 5, and N = 3, for the case K = 20.
The ICSI results have been obtained considering pilot
sequences of length τp = 128 and an uplink transmit

Figure 4. Average uplink achievable rate per user versus transmit
power. System parameters: M = 100, K = 20, NAP × NM S =
16 × 8, P = 2, N = 3.

power of 100mW. We also show results for the case
of FD beamforming and of HY beamforming, with a
number of RF chains equal to the multiplexing order P .
Figs. 1 and 2 show, considering 60 independent scenario
realizations, the average rate-per-user, on the downlink
and on the uplink, versus the transmitted power for the
lightly loaded scenario. Figs. 3 and 4 show the same
results for the highly loaded scenario. Although the
considered transmitted power range is [−30, 30] dBW,
the region of interest is in the range [−10, 0] dBW
for the downlink and [−20, −10] dBW for the uplink.
Inspecting the figures, some comments can be done. First
of all, there is a saturation effect for all the considered
structures, with the exception of the PCSI/FD structures
in the lightly loaded case. This can be seen as an
indication that the system is interference-limited in the
high transmit power region, and this of course comes
at no surprise since the PCSI/FD ZF structure is able
to get rid of the interference only in the lightly loaded
case, while in the highly loaded case the interference
subspace fills all the available dimensions. The saturation
is also due to the fact that we are using a very simple 0-1
channel-independent beamforming structure at the MSs.
Nonetheless, in the previously cited regions of interest
for the transmit powers, it is seen that the suboptimal
structures relying on imperfect CSI provide satisfactory
performance, in some cases outperforming the ones with
perfect CSI (again this is due to the fact that we are
not considering an optimal approach to beamforming).
In particular, for the light-loaded case, at a 1W transmit
power, the ICSI/HY/UC structure achieves a downlink
rate-per-user of about 1 Gbit/s (corresponding to 25
bit/s/Hz spectral efficiency) and the ICSI/HY/CF structure achieves 160 Mbit/s (corresponding to 4 bit/s/Hz
spectral efficiency); the corresponding uplink rate-peruser are 800 Mbit/s and 150 MBit/s, for the UC and the

CF approaches, respectively. For the highly loaded scenario (K = 20, i.e. four times more users), the downlink
average rate-per-user is 239 Mbit/s for the ICSI/HY/UC
and 37 Mbit/s for the ICSI/HY/CF structure. We see that
the spectral efficiency values are approximately constant
when passing from the lightly loaded to the highly
loaded case. We also see that for the case of ICSI, the UC
approach greatly outperforms the CF approach. This is
due to the fact that each AP obtains very noisy channel
estimates for far MSs, and this its contribution to the
transmission and reception phase for far MSs basically
adds detrimental noise and interference originated from
pilot contamination. Comparing our results with those
obtained in [4] with reference at sub-6 GHz frequencies,
we see that the gap between the UC and the CF approach
is at mmWave frequencies even bigger than at sub-6 Ghz
frequencies, presumably due to the stronger attenuation
at mmWave frequencies, which makes the contribution
from far APs practically useless and detrimental. A
similar discussion can be made for the uplink, and is
omitted for the sake of brevity.
V. C ONCLUSION
The paper has presented first results on the comparison
between the CF and UC approach at mmWave frequencies, taking into account the effect of channel estimation
errors, the presence of HY beamforming at the APs and
of a very simple 0-1 channel independent beamforming
structure at the MSs. Despite these simplifications lead to
an interference-limited system, the proposed techniques
are able to achieve remarkable values in terms of datarates and of spectral efficiency, and the UC approach
has been shown to outperform the CF one in practical
settings.
R EFERENCES
[1] J. G. Andrews, S. Buzzi, W. Choi, S. V. Hanly, A. Lozano, A. C.
Soong, and J. C. Zhang, “What will 5G be?” IEEE Journal on
Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 1065–1082,
2014.
[2] H. Q. Ngo, A. Ashikhmin, H. Yang, E. G. Larsson, and T. L.
Marzetta, “Cell-free massive MIMO: Uniformly great service for
everyone,” in 2015 IEEE 16th International Workshop on Signal Processing Advances in Wireless Communications (SPAWC).
IEEE, Jul. 2015, pp. 201–205.
[3] ——, “Cell-free massive MIMO versus small cells,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 1834–
1850, 2017.
[4] S. Buzzi and C. D’Andrea, “User-centric communications versus
cell-free massive MIMO for 5G cellular networks,” in Proc. 21st
International ITG Workshop on Smart Antennas, 2017.
[5] ——, “On clustered statistical MIMO millimeter wave channel
simulation,” ArXiv e-prints [Online] Available: https:// arxiv.org/
abs/ 1604.00648, May 2016.
[6] K. Haneda et al., “5G 3GPP-like channel models for outdoor urban
microcellular and macrocellular environments,” arXiv preprint.
arXiv:1602.07533, 2016.
[7] M. Iwanow, N. Vucic, M. H. Castaneda, J. Luo, W. Xu, and
W. Utschick, “Some aspects on hybrid wideband transceiver design
for mmwave communication systems,” in Smart Antennas (WSA
2016); Proceedings of the 20th International ITG Workshop on.
VDE, 2016, pp. 1–8.

