Utility-based Downlink Pilot Assignment in
Cell-Free Massive MIMO
Giovanni Interdonato∗† , Pål Frenger∗ , Erik G. Larsson†
∗

arXiv:1803.08828v1 [] 23 Mar 2018

†

Ericsson Research, 581 12 Linköping, Sweden
Department of Electrical Engineering (ISY), Linköping University, 581 83 Linköping, Sweden
{giovanni.interdonato, pal.frenger}@ericsson.com, erik.g.larsson@liu.se

Abstract—We propose a strategy for orthogonal downlink pilot
assignment in cell-free massive MIMO (multiple-input multipleoutput) that exploits knowledge of the channel state information,
the channel hardening degree at each user, and the mobility
conditions for the users. These elements, properly combined
together, are used to define an user pilot utility metric, which
measures the user’s real need of a downlink pilot for efficient data
decoding. The proposed strategy consists in assigning orthogonal
downlink pilots only to the users having a pilot utility metric
exceeding a predetermined threshold. Instead, users that are not
assigned with an orthogonal downlink pilot decode the data by
using the statistical channel state information. The utility-based
approach guarantees higher downlink net sum throughput, better
support both for high-speed users and shorter coherent intervals
than prior art approaches.

I. I NTRODUCTION
Cell-free massive MIMO [1] comes out from the combination of massive MIMO [2], distributed architecture, and cellless network topology. In such a system, a very large number
of base station antennas, named as access points (APs) herein,
are geographically distributed and connected to one (or more)
central process unit (CPU) through a fronthaul network. All
the APs jointly and coherently serve a smaller number of users
in the same time-frequency resources.
The use of coherent cooperation as key enabling to mitigate
the inter-cell interference has been fully exploited in literature,
and it results in concepts known as network MIMO [3], coordinated multipoint with joint processing (CoMP-JP) [4], and
multi-cell MIMO cooperative networks [5]. Cell-free massive
MIMO can be considered the scalable way to implement network MIMO, since channel state information (CSI) acquisition
and channel estimation can be performed locally at each AP
by exploiting the channel reciprocity property of time-division
duplex (TDD) systems [6].
Compared to conventional (cellular centralized) massive
MIMO, cell-free massive MIMO guarantees an increased
macro-diversity gain, since each UE receives the same signal
from very different paths. Moreover, the co-processing over
the APs alleviates the interference and yields higher spectral
efficiency to cell-edge users [1]. Hence, each user experiences
that there are no cell boundaries since it is surrounded by many
serving APs (hence the term cell-free). However, these benefits
come at the price of increased fronthaul network requirements.
This paper was supported by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research
and innovation programme under grant agreement No 641985 (5Gwireless).

Furthermore, cell-free massive MIMO is characterized by a
low degree of channel hardening [7], [8].
The channel hardening property is crucial in conventional
massive MIMO to eliminate the effects of small-scale fading.
The channel variations averaged out when the same signal is
transmitted by a massive number of co-located antennas over
multiple stochastic channels. This is a direct consequence of
the law of the large numbers. Thanks to the channel hardening,
the user sees a channel that behaves almost as constant, and it
can reliably decode data by using only long-term statistical
CSI. Hence, downlink training that facilitates the users to
acquire instantaneous CSI is not needed in massive MIMO [9].
In contrast, in cell-free massive MIMO the channel hardening is, in general, less pronounced due to the distributed architecture. Basically, only a subset of APs, i.e., the closest APs,
effectively serve a given user because the other contributes
are attenuated by larger path-loss. Hence, the number of APs
actually involved in the transmission is smaller and the law
of the large numbers is not always applicable. Consequently,
users with low degree of channel hardening need to estimate
the CSI in a short-term basis from downlink pilots [7]. Highspeed users also need downlink pilots to acquire instantaneous CSI, regardless of the channel hardening, because
of the fast variations of their channel. However, downlink
pilot transmission requires further radio resources which are
subtracted from the data. Hence, a resource-saving approach
while guaranteeing better system performance is needed when
assigning the downlink pilots to the users.
Contributions: We propose an utility-based strategy for
orthogonal downlink pilot assignment in cell-free massive
MIMO, and provide different variants of pilot utility metrics
as function of user speed, channel hardening degree, user
priority, and rate estimates. We give an analytic definition of
channel hardening degree for cell-free massive MIMO systems
with i.i.d. Rayleigh fading channel. A performance comparison
between the proposed scheme and the prior art is provided.
This study focus to the case of mutually orthogonal pilots.
The case with pilot reuse will be investigated in future work.
II. P ILOT ASSIGNMENT IN M ASSIVE MIMO
Acquiring high quality CSI to facilitate phase-coherent
processing at multiple antennas is a crucial activity in massive
MIMO. By operating in TDD mode, massive MIMO benefits
from the channel reciprocity property, according to which

𝜏
𝐵

𝜏u,d

UL
pilots

DL data

DL
pilots

𝜏u,p

𝜏d,d

𝜏d,p

DL data

𝜏u,p

𝜏d,d

UL data

DL pilot resources
DL data

𝜏u,d
frequency

𝜏
UL
pilots

UL pilot resources

UL data

(a) TDD frame including the DL training

𝐵

𝜏d,d

UL data

𝜏u,d

(b) TDD frame with no DL training
Fig. 1. The TDD frame consists of τ = Tc B symbols, where B and Tc are
the coherence bandwidth and the coherence time, respectively.

the channel responses are the same in both uplink (UL) and
downlink (DL). The BS can estimate the channels from apriori known signals, called pilots, transmitted by the UEs in
the UL (UL training). Thanks to the channel reciprocity, these
estimates are then valid for both the UL and the DL. Similarly,
in the DL, the UEs may need to estimate the channel from
DL pilots sent by the BS (DL training).
A. TDD protocol and Resource Allocation
The TDD frame is generally designed to be smaller or equal
to the channel coherence interval of all UEs. Here, we assume
that a TDD frame is equal to the channel coherence interval,
and that they are interchangeable terms. A TDD frame may
consist of either three or four phases whether the DL training
is performed or not, respectively. The TDD frame including
the DL training phase consists of: (i) UL training (UL pilots);
(ii) DL payload data transmission (DL data); (iii) DL training
(DL pilots); and (iv) UL payload data transmission (UL data),
as shown in Figure 1a. The TDD frame structure for the case
with no DL training is shown in Figure 1b. The TDD frame
is τ = Tc B symbols long, where B indicates the coherence
bandwidth and Tc is the coherence time. Let τp denote the total
number of symbols per TDD frame spent on transmission of
pilots, τd,d and τu,d denote the number of symbols per TDD
frame spent on transmission of DL and UL payload data,
respectively. Hence, the length of the TDD frame is given
by τ = τp + τd,d + τu,d .
In many practical systems, the pilot and data transmissions
are interleaved in the time-frequency domain, as depicted
schematically in Figure 2. Assuming a time-frequency grid
of resource elements as in the 3GPP standards LTE and the
upcoming New Radio (NR), a UL pilot (DL pilot) may consist
of several resource elements (REs). Data as well as pilots in
UL (DL) are transmitted during the UL data (DL data) phase.
In the example in Figure 2, there are 10 UL pilots and 5 DL
pilots, each consisting of 4 REs. If the UL and DL pilots
have to be orthogonal in order not to generate interference,
the pilot REs cannot be used for data transmission by any

time

UL / DL pilot resource element
Assigned UL pilot
Assigned DL pilot

Fig. 2. The data and pilot transmissions are typically interleaved in the timefrequency grid. In this example, 10 orthogonal UL pilots consumes 40 REs
in the UL data (e.g., 1 pilot consists of 4 REs). The DL data contains 5 pilots
consuming 20 REs.

other user. In addition, the assignment of UL and DL pilot
resources is semi-static. Consequently, even when there is only
one single UE active in a UL or DL data the REs reserved for
the UL or DL pilots cannot be allocated for different purposes.
Adapting the number of REs reserved for the pilots to the
dynamic changes of the network requires a significant amount
of control signaling which both consumes radio resources and
introduces delay. Therefore, minimizing the pilot overhead
without affecting the performance represents a relevant aspect
when designing the transmission protocol.
B. Pilot Contamination and Orthogonal Pilot Transmission
Massive MIMO performance is profoundly affected by a
basic phenomenon named as pilot contamination [10]. Pilot
contamination arises when two or more UEs send the same,
or in general non-orthogonal, pilot sequences. More specifically, sending non-orthogonal pilots causes mutual interference
which deteriorates the quality of the corresponding channel
estimates. In addition, pilot contamination does not vanish
as the number of BS antennas grows large, thus it is an
impairment that remains asymptotically. Ideally, every UE in
a massive MIMO system should be assigned an orthogonal
UL pilot sequence in order not to create interference and contaminate the UL channel estimates. However, the maximum
number of orthogonal pilot sequences that can be assigned to
the UEs is upper-bounded by the number of symbols in the
channel coherence interval. Since this number is finite, and
depending on propagation environments, the assignment of
mutually orthogonal UL pilots might be physically impossible.
The radio resources become even more limited if DL pilots
need to be allocated. As mentioned earlier, in massive MIMO
the DL pilots are not needed because they do not introduce
relevant gain in term of system capacity, by virtue of the
combined effect of channel hardening and channel reciprocity.
However, this holds under the assumption of low/moderatespeed user. High-speed UEs suffer from inaccurate and outdated CSI (CSI aging) as their channel conditions change very
quickly. Therefore, they need to be trained in the DL to know
the instantaneous CSI, regardless of the channel hardening.

Conversely, DL training is also in general more beneficial in
cell-free massive MIMO due to the lower degree of channel
hardening [7].
The DL training scheme introduced in [11] for conventional
massive MIMO, and repurposed in [7] for cell-free massive
MIMO, consists in assigning one orthogonal DL pilot per UE,
and using conjugate beamforming to send the pilot, instead
of simply broadcasting. This allows to sensibly reduce both
the mutual pilot interference and the pilot overhead, which
now scales as the number of the UEs instead of the number
of antennas. However, if the number of active UEs exceeds
the number of symbols that can be afforded for DL pilots,
mutually orthogonal DL pilots cannot be assigned, and pilot
reuse is necessary.
In this paper, we assume that only mutually orthogonal
pilots can be assigned. If the number of the active UEs is larger
than the number of symbols per frame reserved for pilots, then
the exceeding users will not be served in the current frame but
scheduled in the next frame. Adopting orthogonal pilots with
no pilot reuse eliminates the pilot contamination and:
• makes the interference from DL signals towards different
users possible to identify and report. If a UE experiences a large amount of DL interference, it can try to
correlate the received signal with the different candidate
pilot sequences and identify the interference source. The
interfered UE may then report the interfering pilot index
to the serving BS (or APs) which can eliminate the
interference, e.g. by using more robust link adaptation
when both interfered and interfering UEs are active, or
by separating the UEs in time/frequency;
• enables a simpler overall implementation of the system,
since no special measures need to be taken to handle the
pilot contamination. The handling of the potential error
cases associated with pilot reuse or non-orthogonal pilots
increases the complexity at the BS/AP;
• reduces the overhead due to the pilot reconfiguration
process. When pilots are reused, the BS (or the APs)
may repeatedly re-assign the UL/DL pilots to reduce
the pilot contamination between UEs spatially correlated
(e.g., assigning orthogonal pilots to neighbor UEs and
reusing the same pilot for distant UEs). With orthogonal
pilots, each UE can keep the same pilot during its lifetime
in the network. Hence, orthogonal pilots are UE specific.
III. S YSTEM M ODEL
We consider a TDD cell-free massive MIMO system with
M single-antenna APs and K single-antenna UEs, M > K.
We assume both the APs and the UEs are randomly spread
out in a large area without boundaries. The APs are connected
to one or more CPUs through a fronthaul network with
different network topologies, as shown in Figure 3. Each AP
locally acquires CSI and estimates the channel from mutually
orthogonal UL pilots sent by the UEs. These estimates are used
in the DL for precoding, assuming perfect channel reciprocity
calibration. We focus on conjugate beamforming, also known
as maximum-ratio transmission, as DL precoding technique.

CPU

UE

AP

𝑔𝑚𝑘
mth AP

kth UE

Fig. 3. In cell-free massive MIMO, a large number of APs serve simultaneously a smaller number of UEs. The CPUs handle the APs cooperation.

Although it does not represent the optimal precoder, performing such a linear processing offers low operational complexity
with inexpensive hardware components. In addition, conjugate
beamforming does not require CSI sharing among APs and
CPU, with benefits on the fronthaul network load. Therefore,
the CPU is responsible to collect and elaborate only payload
data, and to implement advanced techniques for DL power
control and DL/UL pilot assignment.
The TDD frame length is equal to the coherence interval.
Hence, the channel is assumed to be static within a frame and
variable independently for each frame. Let gmk denote the
channel gain between the mth AP and the kth user (and vice
versa) defined as
p
(1)
gmk = βmk hmk ∼ CN (0, βmk ),
where hmk represents the small-scale fading, and βmk is the
large-scale fading. We assume that {hmk } coefficients follow
a Rayleigh distribution, i.e, hmk ∼ CN (0, 1) and i.i.d. RVs,
for m = 1, . . . , M , k = 1, . . . , K. The large-scale fading
addresses path-loss and shadow-fading. We assume the largescale fading coefficients are estimated a-priori and known
whenever required.
The AP estimates the UL channel by correlating the
received UL pilot signal with the corresponding known
pilot sequence and performing MMSE. The resulting UL
channel estimated from the orthonormal UL pilot sequence
ϕk ∈ Cτu,p ×1 , kϕk k2 = 1, is Gaussian RV distributed as
ĝmk ∼ CN (0, γmk ) where
γmk =

2
τu,p ρu,p βmk
,
τu,p ρu,p βmk + 1

(2)

and ρu,p represents the normalized transmit signal-to-noise
ratio (SNR) associated to the UL pilot symbol.
Remark 1: The transmission of orthogonal UL pilots requires τu,p = K. Each AP is able to resolve K spatial dimensions since the channel estimates are orthogonal each other.
The estimates are not affected by the pilot contamination.
Remark 2: γmk gives a measure of the estimation quality.
In fact, γmk ≤ βmk , with equality if the estimation is perfect.

In the DL, each AP serves all the UEs implementing power
control, and using the UL estimates to perform conjugate
beamforming. The data signal sent by the mth AP is
xm =

√

ρd

K
X
√

∗
ηmk ĝmk
qk ,

(3)

k=1

where qk is the unit-power data symbol, i.e., E{|qk |2 } = 1,
for the kth UE, and ρd is the normalized transmit SNR related
∗
to the data symbol. The term ĝmk
represents the precoding
factor, and {ηmk }, m = 1, ..., M , k = 1, ..., K, are the power
control coefficients satisfying the per-AP power constraint
2

E{|xm | } ≤ ρd =⇒

K
X

ηmk γmk ≤ 1, for all m.

(4)

k=1

that the effective DL channel gains {akk0 }, k = 1, . . . , K, can
be approximated as Gaussian RVs. Hence, an achievable DL
rate of the transmission from the APs to the kth UE in the
cell-free massive MIMO system with conjugate beamforming,
mutually orthogonal UL and DL pilots, for any finite M and
K, is given by [7] as follows












2
ρ
|â
|


d kk
iCSI
Rk ≈ E log2 1+
, (7)

K


P



ςkk


ρd τd,p ρd,p ςkk+1 +ρd
ςkk0 +1 

k0 6=k

where ρd,p represents the SNR associated to the DL pilot
symbol, âkk is the estimate of the effective DL channel gain
akk , given by

The effective DL channel gain seen by the kth UE is given by
akk0 ,

M
X
√

0
∗
ηmk0 gmk ĝmk
0 , k = 1, ..., K.

(5)

m=1

The kth UE can detect the data symbol qk only if it has a
sufficient knowledge of akk .
IV. ACHIEVABLE D OWNLINK R ATE
In the DL, the UEs can either rely on statistical CSI or
estimate the instantaneous CSI to perform data decoding. The
DL channel can be estimated, as in the UL, from DL pilot
beamformed by each AP, as described in [7].
A. Fading Channel with Statistical CSI at the Receiver
If each UE has knowledge of the channel statistics but not
of the channel realizations, a lower bound on the DL ergodic
capacity can be calculated as described in [2, Sec. 2.3.4],
assuming that Gaussian codebooks are used.
An achievable DL rate of the transmission from the APs
to the kth UE in the cell-free massive MIMO system with
conjugate beamforming, mutually orthogonal UL pilots, for
any finite M and K, is given by [1] and equal to

2 
 M
P √
ρd
ηmk γmk




m=1
sCSI
Rk = log2 1 +
(6)
,
K
P


ρd ςkk + ρd
ςkk0 + 1
k0 6=k

PM

where ςkk0 , m=1 ηmk0 βmk γmk0 , k 0 = 1, . . . , K. The term
ρd ςkk represents the so-called beamforming uncertainty gain.
It comes from the UEs’ lack of the instantaneous CSI. Hence,
this gain gives an indirect measure of the channel hardening:
the more the channel hardens for UE k, the smaller ςkk is.
B. Fading Channel with Side Information
If each UE has imperfect knowledge of the instantaneous
CSI, a lower bound on the DL ergodic capacity can be
calculated by invoking the capacity-bounding technique for
channel with side information (i.e., the channel estimates) as
in [12] and [2, Sec. 2.3.5]. A valid approximation for such a
DL ergodic capacity lower bound is given in [7] by observing

M √
P
√
ηmkγmk
τd,p ρd,p ςkk akk + τd,p ρd,p ςkk wdp,k +

âkk =

m=1

τd,p ρd,p ςkk +1

.

(8)
The expectation in (7) is taken with respect to the channel
estimate âkk . In (8), the second term in the numerator is
Gaussian RV as wdp,k ∼ CN (0, 1) is AWGN at the kth UE
during the DL pilot signaling.
V. U TILITY- BASED DL P ILOT A SSIGNMENT
A. Proposed Scheme
The detailed description of the proposed scheme is illustrated from the signaling diagram in Figure 4. All the UEs
send their own UL pilot at the beginning of the coherence
interval, as shown in Figure 1a. The AP estimates the UL
channel and sends the corresponding CSI to the CPU. The
CPU collects this information from each AP, and computes the
pilot utility metric for each user. Based on this information,
the CPU groups the UEs to two categories: (i) UEs requiring
DL pilots, having a pilot utility metric above a predetermined
threshold (UE1 in Figure 4); (ii) UEs not requiring DL pilots,
having a pilot utility metric below a predetermined threshold
(UE2 in Figure 4). Once these two groups are defined, the CPU
sends to all the APs the DL pilot configuration message, which
conveys the DL-pilot-to-UE mapping. Hence, the AP forwards
part of this message (it might be just one bit) to each UE. After
the data transmission, the APs send the orthogonal DL pilots
only to the UEs of the first category (UE1 ). UE1 knows a
priori the switching time from the DL data to the DL training
phase since the TDD frame structure is determined on large
time scale. If a DL pilot is assigned, the UE estimates the DL
channel based on the DL pilot and demodulates the data on the
remaining resources assigned to the DL transmission. If a DL
pilot is not assigned, the UE assumes that the DL channel can
be approximated by a constant, and it demodulates the data
on all resources assigned to the DL transmission by exploiting
the statistical CSI knowledge. No resources are assigned to
UE2 during the DL training phase, in order to avoid data-topilot interference. The TDD frame for the proposed scheme is
depicted in Figure 5.

CPU

UE1

AP
UE1 UL pilot TX
CSI TX

UE2

UE2 UL pilot TX

Pilot utility
metric
computation
DL pilot
configuration

puk = wDk + (1 − w)(1 − ChDk ),

DL pilot config

UE1 DL pilot config
UE2 DL pilot config
UE1 DL data TX
UE2 DL data TX
UE1 DL pilot TX

Fig. 4. In the utility-based DL pilot assignment strategy, the CPU collects
from the APs all the information needed to compute the pilot utility metric.
Afterwards, it sends the DL pilot config messagge to the APs to inform which
UE is assigned an orthogonal DL pilot.

𝜏
𝐵

the channel hardening degree, and the CSI. In general, it must
guarantee an orthogonal DL pilot to: (i) high-speed UEs,
which necessarily need the instantaneous CSI to face the CSI
aging; (ii) low/moderate-speed UEs experiencing a low degree
of channel hardening, which require instantaneous CSI to face
the unreliability of the statistical CSI. On the other hand,
all low/moderate-speed UEs for which the channel hardens
sufficiently will not require DL training, and they may rely
only on statistical CSI. Hence, UEs may be assigned with an
orthogonal DL pilot if the Doppler spread value is above a
pre-determined threshold and/or the channel hardening degree
is below a pre-determined threshold. Such a pilot utility metric
can be defined as

UL
pilots

DL data

?

𝜏u,p

𝜏d,d

𝜏d,p

UL data
𝜏u,d

DL
pilots
UE ∈ UE1

UE ∈ UE2

Fig. 5. In the utility-based DL pilot assignment strategy, the DL training phase
is performed only for those users that need to estimate the instantaneous CSI
the most (UE1 , in this example). The rest of the UEs (UE2 , in this example)
rely on statistical CSI. In any case, τd,p symbols cannot be used for data, in
order not to create data-to-pilot interference.

The achievable DL rate, subject to the assumption that
the UEs transmit Gaussian message-bearing symbols, for the
utility-based DL pilot assignment scheme is given by
(
RkiCSI , if UE k ∈ UE1 ,
ubPA
Rk =
(9)
RksCSI , otherwise.
B. Pilot utility metric
The pilot utility metric can be defined in different manner
according to the purposes. It is a function of the UE mobility,

(10)

where Dk ∈ [0, 1] is the Doppler spread value, ChDk indicates
the channel hardening degree at the kth UE, and w ∈ [0, 1]
is the weight to prioritize differently the UE mobility and the
channel hardening degree.
The channel hardening degree is defined as the ratio between the instantaneous channel gain and its average value.
By following a similar methodology as in [9], we obtain the
channel hardening degree expression at the kth UE for a cellfree massive MIMO system,
nP
o
M
2
Var
|g
|
mk
m=1
(11)
ChDk = 1 −  nP
o2 .
M
2
E
m=1 |gmk |
The larger ChDk is, the more the channel hardens for UE k.
The pilot utility metric may also account for the UE priority
in terms of Quality of Service (QoS) requirements. This needs
the APs collect and send to the CPU the QoS requirements
for each UE, and the CPU determines the UE priorities
accordingly. In this case, the pilot utility metric is

wDk + (1 − w)(1 − ChDk ) + αk , or
puk =
(12)

αk [wDk + (1 − w)(1 − ChDk )],
where αk ∈ [0, 1] is the UE priority. The larger αk is, the
more QoS the UE k requires.
Alternatively to the channel hardening degree estimation, a
DL pilot may be assigned to those users that would increase
their rates the most by taking advantage of the DL pilot. In
this case, the pilot utility metric may be defined as a function
of the achievable rates (or throughputs) estimated by using the
CSI knowledge at each AP. The following pilot utility metrics

 
iCSI
sCSI
,

αk wDk + (1 − w) Rk − Rk



 



αk wDk + (1 − w) TkiCSI − TksCSI ,





 iCSI sCSI i
 h
R −R
,
puk = αk wDk + (1 − w) k RkiCSI k
(13)


 h
 iCSI sCSI i


T
−T

αk wDk + (1 − w) k T iCSI k
,



k

 h
i


α wD + (1 − w) RsCSI −1 ,
k
k
k

are valid alternatives, according to different aims: absolute rate
increase, absolute throughput increase, relative rate increase,
relative throughput increase, and low-rate prioritization, respectively. The per-user net throughput (bit/s) is proportional
to the per-user rate, and takes into account the performance
loss due to the DL and UL pilots transmission (as they subtract
resources to the data). For a symmetric TDD frame, i.e.,
τu,d = τd,d , it is given by


B 1 − τp
Rk ,
(14)
Tk =
2
τ
where B is the bandwidth, and τp is the pilot overhead.
VI. N UMERICAL R ESULTS
Our simulations aim to compare the performance, in terms
of DL net sum throughput and average DL net per-user
throughput, provided by our solution and the existing solutions
of the state-of-the-art. The DL net sum throughput, measured
in bits/sec, is equal to the sum of the DL netPthroughputs per
K
UE defined in (14), and it is given by T = k=1 Tk . Hence,
the average DL net per-user throughput is Tavg = T /K.
A. Simulation Scenario

Description
APs/UEs
simulation area
τ
path-loss
carrier frequency
shadow-fading
shadow-fading std
AP antenna height
UE antenna height

Value
unif. rand. distr.
1 km2
200 symbols
three-slope
2 GHz
uncorrelated
8 dB
5m
1.65 m

Description
M
K
time-slot
d1 , d0
bandwidth B
antenna gain
noise figure
ρ̄d , ρ̄d,p
ρ̄u , ρ̄u,p

Value
200
50
1 ms
50, 10 m
20 MHz
0 dBi
9 dB
200 mW
100 mW

distributed within a square of size 1 km2 ; the bandwidth B
is 20 MHz; the antenna gains are 0 dBi; the noise figure (both
for UL and DL) is 9 dB; the radiated power for data and
pilot is 200 mW for APs, and 100 mW for UEs (ρ̄d , ρ̄d,p ,
ρ̄u , ρ̄u,p , respectively). The corresponding normalized transmit
SNRs (ρd,p , ρd , ρu , ρu,p ), defined in Section III, are obtained
by dividing the radiated powers by the noise power, which is
given by
noise power = B × kB × T0 × noise figure (W),

Assuming the channel model in (1), we describe the pathloss and shadow-fading considered in our performance evaluation. The coefficients {βmk } are defined as follows
βmk = PLmk · 10

TABLE I
S IMULATION SETTINGS

σsh zmk
10

,

(15)

σsh zmk
10

is the shadowwhere PLmk represents the path loss, 10
fading with standard deviation σsh , and zmk ∼ N (0, 1),
i.e., we assume uncorrelated shadow-fading. The path-loss
is modeled as three-slope [1], where the loss exponent can
assume three different values according to the UE-to-AP
distance. More specifically, the loss exponent is 3.5 if the
distance between UE k and AP m (dmk ) is greater than a
first reference distance d1 ; it is equal to 2 if dmk is greater
than a second reference distance d0 and less or equal to d1 .
In the case dmk is less than d0 the loss exponent is 0. The
chosen propagation model is the Hata-COST231. Hence, the
path-loss in dB is given by


if dmk > d1 ,
−L− 35log10(dmk )
PLmk = −L− 15log10(d1 )−20log10(dmk ) if d0 < dmk ≤ d1 ,


−L− 15log10(d1 )−20log10(d0 ) if dmk ≤ d0 ,
(16)
where
L = 46.3+33.9 log10 (f )−(1.1 log10 (f ) − 0.7)hUE
−13.82 log10 (hAP )+(1.56 log10 (f )−0.8).

(17)

In our simulations, d1 = 50 meters, d0 = 10 meters,
the carrier frequency f (in MHz) is 2 GHz, the height of
the UE and AP antennas are 1.65 meters and 5 meters,
respectively. In addition, the shadow-fading coefficients have
standard deviation 8 dB.
The other simulation parameters are set as follows: M =
200 APs and K = 50 UEs are randomly and uniformly

where kB is the Boltzmann constant, and T0 = 290 (Kelvin)
is the noise temperature. We take the length of the TDD
frame τ = 200 symbols, which corresponds to a coherence
bandwidth of 200 kHz and a time-slot of 1 ms. To simulate a
cell-free network topology (i.e., no cell-edge effects), we wrap
the simulation area around with eight twin neighbor areas.
The UL and DL orthogonal pilot sequences are randomly
assigned to the users. Finally, the power control coefficients
{ηmk } are set by performing max-min fairness power control,
as described in [1, Section IV-B]. The simulation settings are
summarized in Table I.
B. Performance Evaluation
Firstly, we measure the channel hardening degree in such a
cell-free massive MIMO system. The cumulative distribution
function (cdf) of the channel hardening degree is shown
in Figure 6, for cell-free massive MIMO and the cellular
centralized massive MIMO. The cdf gives more insights about
the distribution of the channel hardening degree given the
random variables of the AP/UE positions in the deployment
area. In cell-free massive MIMO the channel hardening degree
is given by (11). Instead, in conventional massive MIMO,
for i.i.d. Rayleigh fading channels, the channel hardening
degree simply scales as 1/M [9], and in this case it is given
by 1 − 1/M = 0.995, regardless of the AP/UE position.
Figure 6 confirms that in cell-free massive MIMO the channel
hardening degree is significantly lower than in conventional
massive MIMO.
Next, we introduce an example to show the benefits provided by our solution with respect to the state-of-the-art. Let
us consider the following case studies:
1) statistical CSI (sCSI), prior art: the coherence interval is
structured as in Figure 1b. No DL training is performed

18

1

cumulative distribution function

0.9

Avg net per-user throughput [Mbits/s]

Cell-free massive MIMO
Cellular centralized massive MIMO

0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1

16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0

0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

sCSI

iCSI

ubPA

ChDk
Fig. 6. The ChD in cell-free massive MIMO is much lower compared to
that in conventional massive MIMO. Here, we assume 200 APs randomly
distributed in an area of 1 km2 , and i.i.d. Rayleigh fading channel.

and all the active UEs rely only on statistical CSI to
decode data. Each UE is assigned with an orthogonal
UL pilot. Hence, τu,p = 50, τd,p = 0 =⇒ τp = 50.
2) instantaneous CSI (iCSI), prior art: the coherence interval is structured as in Figure 1a. The DL training
is performed for all UEs. Each UE is assigned with an
orthogonal UL pilot and receives an orthogonal DL pilot
from which it estimates the instantaneous CSI. Hence,
τu,p = τd,p = 50 =⇒ τp = 100.
3) utility-based pilot assignment (ubPA), proposed scheme:
the coherence interval is structured as in Figure 5. Each
UE is assigned with an orthogonal UL pilot. All the UEs
having a pilot utility metric exceeding a predetermined
threshold are assigned with an orthogonal DL pilot. The
remaining UEs rely only on statistical CSI.
Remark 3: In a realistic scenario, the assignment of
UL/DL resources occurs in a quasi-static fashion, since a
dynamic re-allocation of pilots, frame by frame, requires
a huge amount of control signaling to let the UEs know
the exact UL/DL switching time. This also introduces
delay. Therefore, the predetermined threshold is actually
a design setting varying in large time scale.
In view of the above, let us assume the following UL/DL
resources assignment: τu,p = 50, τd,p = 25 =⇒ τp = 75.
Hence, according to the proposed scheme, only the 25
UEs out of 50 with the highest pilot utility metric receive
an orthogonal DL pilot. The remaining 25 UEs have no
allocated resource during the DL training phase, in order
to avoid further interference, as shown in Figure 5.
With the purpose to maximize the DL net sum throughput,
we set the pilot utility metric as in the first expression of (13)
(absolute rate increase). For simplicity, we finally assume that
the length of the TDD frame supports the speed of all the

Fig. 7. Performance comparison between the sCSI, iCSI, and ubPA scheme.
The utility-based pilot assignment strategy guarantees higher average DL net
per-user throughput than the state-of-the-art schemes.

active users in the network, and all the UEs have equal QoS
priority, that is w = 0, αk = 1, respectively.
Remark 4: Since the number of UEs that can be served is
proportional to the time spent sending pilots, while the sum
throughput is proportional to the number of UEs served, it
follows that a good rule to allocate the UL/DL pilot resources
is simply setting the number of symbols spent on transmission
of UL and DL pilots not exceeding half the length of the
coherence interval.
According to this, and the simulation scenario, i.e., τ = 200,
the maximum number of symbols dedicated for the pilots is
τp = 100. Under this assumption, in the iCSI case all the UEs
are served in the current frame. Conversely, if the number of
UEs would be K > 50, then τp > 100, and in the iCSI case
the exceeding UEs would be scheduled in the next frame.
The simulation results in Figure 7 show that ubPA scheme
performs better than the prior art schemes in terms of average
net per-user throughput, providing about 12% improvement
over case sCSI, and about 16% improvement over case iCSI.
The gain introduced by the proposed scheme in terms of
DL net sum throughput is shown in Figure 8. As we can see,
the ubPA scheme provides a gain over scheme sCSI by about
11%, 12% and 13% at the 5th percentile, median and 90th
percentile, respectively. These gains are larger over scheme
iCSI: 17% at the 5th percentile, 16% at the median point
and 15% at the 90th percentile. The results also show that in
such a scenario with many APs and UEs, and short coherence
interval, transmitting one orthogonal DL pilot per UE (scheme
iCSI) is less efficient than letting the UEs rely on statistical
CSI (scheme sCSI). In fact, the performance loss due to the
pilots transmission overhead overcomes the benefits, in terms
of higher effective SINRs, introduced by the DL training.
Lastly, we compare the DL net sum throughputs provided by
three different pilot utility metrics: (i) absolute rate increase,

In fact, the pilot utility metric based on the rate/throughput
estimates takes into account both the ChD by estimating the
beamforming uncertainty gain, and the amount of inter-user
interference. Both factors affect user’s performance and they
need to be jointly evaluated when assigning the DL pilots.

cumulative distribution function

1

0.8

VII. C ONCLUSION
0.6

0.4

0.2

0
600

iCSI
sCSI
ubPA

650

700

750

800

850

900

DL net sum throughput [Mbits/s]
Fig. 8. Cdf of the DL net sum throughput provided by the sCSI, iCSI, and
ubPA scheme. The utility-based pilot assignment strategy guarantees higher
DL net sum throughput than the state-of-the-art schemes.

cumulative distribution function

1

R EFERENCES

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
700

In this paper, we proposed a strategy for orthogonal DL
pilot assignment based on the so-called pilot utility metric,
which is a function of the channel hardening degree or the
rate estimate, user mobility, user QoS priority, and CSI.
The proposed strategy consists in assigning the orthogonal
DL pilots only to the users that benefits the most when
decoding data by exploiting the instantaneous CSI. In general,
this approach guarantees an orthogonal DL pilot to users with
high mobility, to cope with the CSI aging, and users with
low/moderate mobility experiencing low channel hardening,
for which the reliance on statistical CSI in the decoding yields
poor performance. The utility-based pilot assignment scheme
guarantees higher DL per-user and sum throughput, better
support for high-speed users and shorter coherent interval
compared to the state-of-the-art.

ChD-aware
Abs throughput incr.
Abs rate incr.

750

800

850

900

DL net sum throughput [Mbits/s]
Fig. 9. Cdf of the DL net sum throughput provided by the absolute rate and
throughput increase, and ChD-aware pilot utility metric. The absolute rate
increase approach guarantees higher performance than other approaches.

first expression in (13); (ii) absolute throughput increase,
second expression in (13); (iii) ChD-aware pilot utility, second
expression in (12). As shown in Figure 9, the absolute rate
increase pilot utility metric guarantees the highest DL net sum
throughput even though the gain over the absolute throughput
increase approach is negligible.
On the other hand, the gain with respect to the ChDaware approach may reach up to 5%. Estimating the
rates/throughputs can give more information about the UE’s
real need of a DL pilot rather than estimating the ChD.

[1] H. Q. Ngo, A. Ashikhmin, H. Yang, E. G. Larsson, and T. L. Marzetta,
“Cell-free massive MIMO versus small cells,” IEEE Transactions on
Wireless Communications, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 1834–1850, March 2017.
[2] T. L. Marzetta, E. G. Larsson, H. Yang, and H. Q. Ngo, Fundamentals
of Massive MIMO. Cambridge University Press, 2016.
[3] H. Huh, A. M. Tulino, and G. Caire, “Network MIMO with linear
zero-forcing beamforming: Large system analysis, impact of channel
estimation, and reduced-complexity scheduling,” IEEE Transactions on
Information Theory, vol. 58, no. 5, pp. 2911–2934, May 2012.
[4] R. Irmer, H. Droste, P. Marsch, M. Grieger, G. Fettweis, S. Brueck, H. P.
Mayer, L. Thiele, and V. Jungnickel, “Coordinated multipoint: Concepts,
performance, and field trial results,” IEEE Communications Magazine,
vol. 49, no. 2, pp. 102–111, February 2011.
[5] D. Gesbert, S. Hanly, H. Huang, S. S. Shitz, O. Simeone, and W. Yu,
“Multi-cell MIMO cooperative networks: A new look at interference,”
IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, vol. 28, no. 9, pp.
1380–1408, December 2010.
[6] E. Björnson, R. Zakhour, D. Gesbert, and B. Ottersten, “Cooperative
multicell precoding: Rate region characterization and distributed strategies with instantaneous and statistical CSI,” IEEE Transactions on Signal
Processing, vol. 58, no. 8, pp. 4298–4310, Aug 2010.
[7] G. Interdonato, H. Q. Ngo, E. G. Larsson, and P. Frenger, “How much
do downlink pilots improve cell-free massive MIMO?” in 2016 IEEE
Global Communications Conference (GLOBECOM), Dec 2016, pp. 1–7.
[8] Z. Chen and E. Björnson, “Channel hardening and favorable propagation
in cell-free massive MIMO with stochastic geometry,” CoRR, 2017.
[Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1710.00395
[9] H. Q. Ngo and E. G. Larsson, “No downlink pilots are needed in
TDD massive MIMO,” IEEE Transactions on Wireless Communications,
vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 2921–2935, May 2017.
[10] J. Jose, A. Ashikhmin, T. L. Marzetta, and S. Vishwanath, “Pilot contamination and precoding in multi-cell TDD systems,” IEEE Transactions
on Wireless Communications, vol. 10, no. 8, pp. 2640–2651, Aug. 2011.
[11] H. Q. Ngo, E. G. Larsson, and T. L. Marzetta, “Massive MU-MIMO
downlink TDD systems with linear precoding and downlink pilots,” in
Proc. Allerton Conference on Communication, Control, and Computing,
Oct. 2013, pp. 293–298.
[12] M. Medard, “The effect upon channel capacity in wireless communications of perfect and imperfect knowledge of the channel,” IEEE
Transactions on Information Theory, May 2000.

