1

Channel Reconstruction-Based Hybrid

arXiv:1802.05146v1 [] 14 Feb 2018

Precoding for Millimeter Wave Multi-User
MIMO Systems
Miguel R. Castellanos† , Vasanthan Raghavan⋆, Jung H. Ryu⋆ ,
Ozge H. Koymen⋆ , Junyi Li⋆ , David J. Love† , and Borja Peleato†
†
⋆

Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA

Qualcomm Corporate R&D, Bridgewater, NJ 08807, USA

Abstract
The focus of this paper is on multi-user multi-input multi-output (MIMO) transmissions for millimeter
wave systems with a hybrid precoding architecture at the base-station. To enable multi-user transmissions, the base-station uses a cell-specific codebook of beamforming vectors over an initial beam
alignment phase. Each user uses a user-specific codebook of beamforming vectors to learn the top-P
(where P ≥ 1) beam pairs in terms of the observed signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) in a single-user setting.
The top-P beam indices along with their SNRs are fed back from each user and the base-station
leverages this information to generate beam weights for simultaneous transmissions. A typical method
to generate the beam weights is to use only the best beam for each user and either steer energy along this
beam, or to utilize this information to reduce multi-user interference. The other beams are used as fall
back options to address blockage or mobility. Such an approach completely discards information learned
about the channel condition(s) even though each user feeds back this information. With this background,
this work develops an advanced directional precoding structure for simultaneous transmissions at the
cost of an additional marginal feedback overhead. This construction relies on three main innovations:
1) Additional feedback to allow the base-station to reconstruct a rank-P approximation of the channel
matrix between it and each user, 2) A zeroforcing structure that leverages this information to combat
multi-user interference by remaining agnostic of the receiver beam knowledge in the precoder design,
and 3) A hybrid precoding architecture that allows both amplitude and phase control at low-complexity
This material is based upon work supported in part by the National Science Foundation under grants CCF1403458 and
CNS1642982.

2

and cost to allow the implementation of the zeroforcing structure. Numerical studies show that the
proposed scheme results in a significant sum rate performance improvement over naı̈ve schemes even
with a coarse initial beam alignment codebook.

Index Terms
Millimeter wave, multi-input multi-output, multi-user, beamforming, hybrid precoding, phase and amplitude control, zeroforcing, generalized eigenvector, channel estimation

I. I NTRODUCTION
Over the last few years, there has been a growing interest in leveraging the opening up of
the spectrum in the millimeter wave band (∼30-100 GHz) in realizing the emerging higher data
rate demands of cellular systems [1]–[4]. Communications in the millimeter wave band suffers
from increased path loss exponents, higher shadow fading, blockage and penetration losses, etc.,
than sub-6 GHz systems leading to a poorer link margin than legacy systems [5]–[10]. However,
by restricting attention to small cell coverage and by reaping the increased array gains from the
use of large antenna arrays at both the base-station and user ends, significant rate improvements
can be realized in practice.
Millimeter wave propagation is spatially sparse with few dominant clusters in the channel
relative to the number of antennas [5], [6], [11], [12]. Spatial sparsity of the channel along with
the use of large antenna arrays motivates a subset of physical layer beamforming schemes based
on directional transmissions for signaling. In this context, there have been a number of studies
on the design and performance analysis of directional beamforming/precoding structures for
single-user multi-input multi-output (MIMO) systems [13]–[22]. These works [16]–[19] show
that directional schemes are not only good from an implementation standpoint, but are also robust
to phase changes across clusters and allow a smooth tradeoff between peak beamforming gain
and initial user discovery latency. There has also been progress in generalizing such directional
constructions for multi-user MIMO transmissions [22]–[25].
In this context, while legacy systems use as many radio frequency (RF) chains1 as the number
of antennas, their higher cost, energy consumption, area and weight at millimeter wave carrier
frequencies has resulted in the popularity of hybrid beamforming systems [26]–[29]. A hybrid
1

An RF chain includes (but is not limited to) analog-to-digital converters (ADCs), digital-to-analog converters (DACs), mixers,

low-noise and power amplifiers (PAs), etc.

3

beamforming system uses a smaller number of RF chains than the number of antennas, with
the one extreme case of a single RF chain being called the analog/RF beamforming system and
the other extreme of as many RF chains as the number of antennas being called the digital
beamforming system. Spatial sparsity of millimeter wave channels ensures that having as many
RF chains as the number of dominant clusters in the channel is sufficient to reap the full array
gain possible over these channels.
A number of recent works have addressed hybrid beamforming for millimeter wave systems.
The problem of finding the optimal precoder and combiner with a hybrid architecture is posed
as a sparse reconstruction problem in [17], leading to algorithms and solutions based on basis
pursuit methods. While the solutions achieve good performance in certain cases, to address
the performance gap between the solution proposed in [17] and the unconstrained beamformer
structure, an iterative scheme is proposed in [30], [31] relying on a hierarchical training codebook
for adaptive estimation of millimeter wave channels. The authors in [30], [31] show that a
few iterations of the scheme are sufficient to achieve near-optimal performance. In [32], it is
established that a hybrid architecture can approach the performance of a digital architecture as
long as the number of RF chains is twice that of the data-streams. A heuristic algorithm with
good performance is developed when this condition is not satisfied. A number of other works
such as [33]–[36] have also explored iterative/algorithmic solutions for hybrid beamforming.
A common theme that underlies most of these works is the assumption of phase-only control
in the RF/analog domain for the hybrid beamforming architecture. This assumption makes sense
at the user end with a smaller number of antennas (relative to the base-station end), where
operating the PAs below their peak rating across RF chains can lead to a substantially poor
uplink performance. On the other hand, amplitude control (denoted as amplitude tapering in the
antenna theory literature) is necessary at the base-station end with a large number of antennas for
side-lobe management and mitigating out-of-band emissions. Further, given that the base-station
is a network resource, simultaneous amplitude and phase control of the individual antennas
across RF chains is feasible at millimeter wave base-stations at a low-complexity2 and cost [37,
pp. 285-289], [38], [39]. In particular, the millimeter wave experimental prototype demonstrated
in [40] allows simultaneous amplitude and phase control. Thus, it is important to consider a
hybrid architecture with these constraints. Further, given the directional nature of the channel,
2

Any calibration complexity can be seen as a one-time effort at the unit level for a large array and defrayed as a low network

cost.

4

a solution should both inherit a directional structure and provide an intuitive description of the
beam weights. For example, a black box-type algorithmic solution that does not provide an
intuitive description of the beam weights is less preferable over a solution that is constructed
out of measurement reports obtained over an initial beam alignment phase with a directional
structure for the sounding beams.
Main Contributions: With this backdrop, this work addresses these two fundamental issues in
hybrid beamformer design. It is assumed that the base-station trains all the users in the cell with
a cell-specific codebook of beamforming vectors over an initial beam alignment phase. Each user
makes an estimate3 of the top-P (where P ≥ 1) beams over this phase and reports the beam
indices to be used by the base-station as well as the measured/received signal-to-noise ratios
(SNRs). The simplest implementation at the base-station uses only the best beam information
for beam steering or zeroforcing as in [23], [24], with other beams serving as fall back options.
In contrast to this approach, we propose to reconstruct or estimate a rank-P approximation of
the channel matrix between the base-station and the user (at the base-station end). To realize this
reconstruction, we envision the additional feedback of the phase of the received signal estimate
of the top-P beams over the beam alignment phase and the cross-correlation information of
the top-P beams at the user end with the beam used for multi-user reception. With this novel
construction, the base-station can remain agnostic of the user’s top-P beams in precoder design.
In terms of overhead, in 3GPP 5G-NR, these quantities can be fed back over the physical uplink
control channel (PUCCH) with a Type-II feedback scheme [41, Sec. 8.2.1.6.3, pp. 24-26]; see
Sec. V-C for a detailed study that demonstrates this feedback overhead to be marginal. Leveraging
the rank-P channel approximation, we propose the use of a zeroforcing structure that is then
quantized to meet the RF precoding constraints (amplitude and phase control) at the base-station
end for simultaneous transmissions.
To benchmark and compare the performance of the proposed scheme, we establish two
upper bounds for the sum rate. This is a fundamentally difficult problem given the non-convex
dependence of the sum rate on the beamforming vectors [42]–[44]. The first bound is based
on an intuitive parsing and understanding of the zeroforcing structure. The second bound is
3

In a practical implementation such as the Third Generation Partnership Project New Radio (3GPP 5G-NR) design, P = 4 is

typically assumed both in terms of measurements and reporting [41]. The received SNR is estimated as the received power of a
beamformed link (corresponding to the beam pair under consideration) using a certain reference symbol resource. This metric
is typically known as the reference symbol received power (RSRP) of the link.

5

based on an alternating optimization of the beamformer-combiner pair with signal-to-leakage
and noise ratio (SLNR) [45] and signal-to-interference and noise ratio (SINR) as optimization
metrics. Numerical studies show that the proposed scheme performs significantly better than a
naı̈ve beam steering solution even for an initial beam alignment codebook of poor resolution.
Further, the proposed scheme is comparable with the established upper bounds provided the beam
alignment codebook resolution is moderate-to-good. Thus, our work establishes the utility and
efficacy of the proposed feedback techniques as well as opens up avenues for further investigation
of such approaches in hybrid beamforming with millimeter wave systems.
Organization: This paper is organized as follows. Sec. II develops the system setup and explains the RF precoder architectural constraints adopted in this work. In Sec. III, we provide
a background of the initial beam alignment phase and the feedback mechanism necessary for
the multi-user beamforming envisioned in this work. Sec. IV generates two upper bounds on
the sum rate to benchmark the performance of the proposed scheme. Sec. V performs a number
of numerical studies to understand the performance of the proposed scheme relative to a naı̈ve
beam steering solution as well as to the upper bounds developed in Sec. IV. Concluding remarks
are provided in Sec. VI.
Notations: Lower- and upper-case bold symbols are used to denote vectors and matrices, respectively. The i-th entry of a vector x and the (i, j)-th entry of a matrix X are denoted by
x(i) and X(i, j), respectively. The regular matrix transpose and complex conjugate Hermitian
transpose operations of a matrix are denoted by (·)T and (·)† , respectively. The two-norm of a
vector is denoted as k · k with C, R and CN standing for the set of reals, complex numbers and
the complex normal random variable, respectively.
II. S YSTEM S ETUP
We consider a cellular downlink scenario with a single base-station serving Kcell potential
users. The base-station and each user are assumed to be equipped with planar arrays of dimensions Ntx × Ntz antennas and Nrx × Nrz antennas, respectively. At both ends, the inter-antenna
element spacing is λ/2 where λ is the wavelength of propagation. With Nt = Ntx · Ntz and
Nr = Nrx · Nrz , the base-station and each user are assumed to have Mt ≤ Nt and Mr ≤ Nr RF
chains, respectively.
For the channel Hk ∈ CNr ×Nt between the base-station and the k-th user (where k =
1, · · · , Kcell ), we assume an extended geometric propagation model over Lk clusters/paths [6],

6

[46]
Hk =

r

Lk
Nr Nt X
αk,ℓ uk,ℓ v†k,ℓ .
Lk ℓ=1

(1)

In (1), αk,ℓ , uk,ℓ and vk,ℓ denote the complex gain, the array steering vector at the user end
corresponding to the angle of arrival (AoA) in azimuth/zenith, and the array steering vector at
the base-station corresponding to the angle of departure (AoD) in azimuth/zenith, respectively.
The cluster gains are assumed to be independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) standard
complex Gaussian random variables: αk,ℓ ∼ CN (0, 1). The normalization of the channel ensures


that E Tr(Hk H†k ) = Nr Nt .
In terms of the system model, we focus on the narrowband aspects and assume that the base-

station serves K ≤ Kcell users simultaneously with data along Mt RF chains. The base-station
precodes rm data-streams for the m-th user with the rm × 1 symbol vector sm using the Mt × rm
digital/baseband precoder FDig, m which is then up-converted to the carrier frequency by the use
of the Nt × Mt RF precoder FRF . This results in the following system equation at the k-th user
" K
#
r
X
ρ
Hk FRF ·
FDig, m sm + nk
(2)
yk =
K
m=1

where ρ is the pre-precoding SNR and nk ∼ CN (0, INr ) is the Nr × 1 white Gaussian noise

vector added at the k-th user. We assume that sm are i.i.d. complex Gaussian random vectors
with E[sm ] = 0 and E[sm s†m ] = Irm .

At the k-th user, we assume that yk is processed (down-converted) with an Nr × Mr user-

specific RF combiner GRF, k followed by a user-specific Mr × rk digital combiner GDig, k to
produce an estimate of sk as follows
b
sk = G†Dig, k G†RF, k yk
r
r
ρ †
ρ †
†
GDig, k GRF, k Hk FRF FDig, k sk +
GDig, k G†RF, k Hk FRF
=
K
K

(3)
K
X

FDig, m sm + nk .

m=1,m6=k

(4)

The achievable rate Rk (in nats/s/Hz) at the k-th user when treating multi-user interference as
noise is given as


ρ
(5)
Rk = log det Irk + G†Dig, k G†RF, k Hk FRF FDig, k F†Dig, k F†RF H†k GRF, k GDig, k · Σ−1
intf
K
where Σintf denotes the interference and noise covariance matrix
!
X
ρ †
†
†
(6)
Σintf = Irk + GDig, k GRF, k Hk FRF
FDig, m FDig, m F†RF H†k GRF, k GDig, k .
K
m6=k

7

The traditional use of finite-rate feedback has been to convey the index of a precoder matrix
from an appropriately-designed codebook of precoders to assist with adaptive transmissions to
improve Rk [47], [48]. More generally, feedback from users can also be used to aid in scheduling,
channel estimation and advanced/non-codebook based precoder design. In this work, as we will
see later in Sec. III, we assume that each user feeds back its top beam indices, an estimate of the
received SNR and signal phase, and cross-correlation of the top receive beams to assist with the
design of a non-codebook based multi-user precoder structure. In terms of precoder constraints,
we make the assumption that FDig, m ∈ CMt ×rm .
For the RF precoder, we assume that the amplitude and phase of each entry in FRF are
controlled by a finite precision gain controller and phase shifter, respectively. In other words,
the amplitude and phase come from a set of 2Bamp and 2Bphase quantization levels

|FRF (i, j)| ∈ {A1 , · · · , A2Bamp } , ∠FRF (i, j) ∈ φ1 , · · · , φ2Bphase ,

(7)

where 0 ≤ A1 < A2 < · · · < A2Bamp . Prior work on hybrid beamforming such as [17], [30]–
[32] etc., assume that the RF precoder can only be controlled by a phase shifter. However,
such constraining assumptions are not reflective of practical implementations [38]–[40], where
an independent gain controller can be used in every RF chain for every antenna. With these
structural constraints on the precoder, the transmit power constraint is captured by
K
X

m=1



†
†
Tr FDig, m FRF FRF FDig, m ≤ K.

(8)

We are interested in the design of RF and digital precoders with the sum rate, Rsum ,
PK
PK
k=1 Rk , being the metric to maximize. In general, we only need the constraints
k=1 rk ≤

Mt ≤ Nt and maxk rk ≤ Mr ≤ Nr . However, the considered sum rate optimization with such an
assumption is quite complicated. To overcome this complexity, we consider a simple use-case
in this work.
III. M ULTI -U SER B EAMFORMER D ESIGN
We are interested in the practically-motivated setting where each user is equipped with only
one RF chain and the base-station transmits one data-stream to each user that is simultaneously
scheduled. In this scenario, Mr = rk = 1 (for all k = 1, · · · , K) and Mt = K ≤ Nt . The system

8

decoding model in (2) and (4) reduce to
b
sk = G†Dig, k G†RF, k yk



r
ρ
= G†Dig, k G†RF, k · 
s +nk 
Hk FRF · FDig · |{z}
|{z} |{z}
K
| {z } | {z }
1×1

=

r

1×Nr

Nt ×K

K×K

ρ
· gk† Hk [f1 s1 , · · · , fK sK ] + gk† nk
K

(9)

K×1

(10)

where FDig = [FDig,1 , · · · , FDig,K ] and s = [s1 , · · · , sK ]T , and the second equation follows
P
†
assuming4 fk = FRF FDig,k and GRF, k = gk . The power constraint is equivalent to K
m=1 fk fk ≤
K and Rk reduces to

Rk = log 1 +

· |gk† Hk fk |2
P
· m6=k |gk† Hk fm |2

ρ
K

1+

ρ
K

!

.

(11)

The focus of this section is to first develop an advanced feedback mechanism and a systematic
design of the multi-user beamforming structure based on a directional representation of the
channel. This structure allows the base-station to combat multi-user interference in simultaneous
transmissions.
A. Initial Beam Alignment
Enabling multi-user transmissions in practice is critically dependent on an initial beam acquisition process (commonly known as the beam alignment phase). In a practical implementation
such as 3GPP 5G-NR, beam alignment corresponds to a beam sweep over a block of secondary
synchronization (SS) signals transmitted over multiple ports/RF chains. The use of multiple
directional beams over multiple ports results in a composite beam pattern at the base-station
end (as seen from the user side). The composite pattern can lead to uncertainty in the direction of the strongest path between the base-station and the user. This directional ambiguity is
subsequently resolved with a beam refinement over the individual constituent beams that make
the composite beam on separate resource elements. Beam refinement allows identification and
ambiguity resolution of the constituent beams.
4

A simple realization of the hybrid precoding architecture is achieved by setting FDig = IK and the desired fk for the k-th

user is set as the k-th column of FRF . The desired fk is such that fk† fk ≤ 1 and meets the quantization constraints in (7). In
a practical implementation, FDig could be primarily used for sub-band precoding and in the narrowband context of this work,
FDig = IK would reflect such an implementation-driven model.

9

Such a “post directional ambiguity resolved” beam alignment process is modeled by assuming
that the base-station is equipped with an N element codebook Ftr
n
o
Ftr = f tr,1 , . . . , f tr,N ,

and the k-th user is equipped with an M element user-specific codebook Gtrk
n
o
(k)
(k)
Gtrk = gtr,1 , . . . , gtr,M .

(12)

(13)

A typical design methodology for Ftr is a hierarchical design with different sets of beams
that trade-off peak array gain at the cost of initial beam acquisition latency. For example,
at least from the 3GPP 5G-NR perspective, the designs of Ftr and Gtrk are intended to be

implementation-specific at the base-station and user ends, respectively. Nevertheless, overarching
design guidelines for beam broadening are provided in [14], [19], [49], [50]. In particular, a
broadened beam can be generated by an optimal co-phasing of a number of array steering
vectors in appropriately chosen directions. Both the number of such vectors as well as their
steering directions can be optimized to produce a broadened beam. It must also be pointed out
that most of the beam broadening works have some variations in terms of design principles and
these variations themselves do not affect the flavor of results reported in this paper.
In the beam alignment phase, the top-P beam indices at the base-station and each user
that maximize an estimate of the received SNR are learned. In particular, the received SNR
corresponding to the (m, n)-th beam index pair at the k-th user is given as
2

†
(k)
g
SNR(k)
(m,
n)
=
H
f
k tr,n .
tr,m
rx

(14)

SNR and let the top-P beam pair indices be denoted as
n

o
M=
mk1 , nk1 , · · · , mkP , nkP .

(15)

Let the beam pair indices at the k-th user be arranged in non-increasing order of the received

With the simplified notation of

(k)

k
k
SNRrx, ℓ , SNR(k)
rx (mℓ , nℓ ), ℓ = 1, · · · , P,
(k)

(16)

(k)

we have SNRrx, 1 ≥ · · · ≥ SNRrx, P . With the initial beam alignment methodology as described
above, we now leverage the top-P beam information learned at the k-th user to estimate the
channel matrix Hk and to design FRF at the base-station end.

10

B. Channel Reconstruction and Beamformer Design
A typical use of the feedback information at the base-station is to select the top/best beam
indices for all the users and to leverage this information to construct a multi-user transmission
scheme. Such an approach is adopted in [24], where multi-user beam designs leveraging only the

top beam pair index, mk1 , nk1 , and intended to serve different objectives are proposed: i) greedily

(from each user’s perspective) steering a beam to the best direction for that user (called the beam
steering scheme), ii) using the information collated from different users to combat interference to
other simultaneously scheduled users via a zeroforcing solution (called the zeroforcing scheme),
and iii) for leveraging both the beam steering and interference management objectives via a
generalized eigenvector optimization (called the generalized eigenvector scheme). If the beam

pair mk1 , nk1 is blocked or fades, the k-th user requests the base-station to switch to the beam
index nk2 and it switches to the beam with index mk2 (and so on) [10].

In this work, we propose to generalize the structures in [24] by leveraging all the top-P beam
pair indices fed back from each user. In this direction, the base-station intends to reconstruct or
estimate a rank-P approximation of (a scaled version of) the channel matrix Hk corresponding
to the k-th user as follows
bk =
H

P
X
ℓ=1

b k,ℓ v
b†k,ℓ ,
α
bk,ℓ u

(17)

b k,ℓ and v
bk,ℓ are defined as estimates of the array steering vectors uk,ℓ and vk,ℓ , respecwhere u

tively. Given the channel model structure in (1), (17) is simplified by estimating vk, ℓ and |αk, ℓ |

by ftr,nkℓ and γk,ℓ, respectively, where

γk,ℓ ,

r



(k)
QBSNR SNRrx, ℓ

(18)

for some choice of BSNR . In the above description, QB (·) denotes an appropriately-defined
b k as
B-bit quantization operation5 of the quantity under consideration. However, estimating H
in (17) is not complete until we have an estimate for ∠αk,ℓ and uk,ℓ . The quantity ∠αk,ℓ can

be estimated by the user with the same reference symbol resource (or pilot symbol) transmitted
during the beam training phase with no additional training overhead. Therefore, we define ϕk,ℓ
as the Best, phase -bit quantization of the phase of an estimate bstr,k,ℓ of the pilot symbol str,k,ℓ
† h√

i
(k)
ϕk,ℓ , QBest, phase (∠bstr,k,ℓ) , where bstr,k,ℓ = gtr, mk
ρ Hk ftr, nkℓ str,k,ℓ + nk,ℓ
(19)
ℓ

5

A B-bit quantization operation is precisely specified if 2B disjoint intervals that exactly and entirely span the range of the

quantity and a representative/quantized value from each interval are specified.

11

for some choice of Best, phase . The noise term nk,ℓ captures the additive noise in the initial beam
alignment process corresponding to the top-P beam pairs.
For uk,ℓ , we note that the base-station not only needs the beam indices {mkℓ } that are useful

for the user side, but also the useful part of the user’s codebook (Gtrk ) since the base-station is
typically unaware of it. To avoid this unnecessary complexity and feedback given the proprietary
structure of Gtrk , we assume that the k-th user uses a multi-user reception beam gk . In the simplest
(k)

manifestation, gk could be the best training beam learned in the beam alignment phase, gtr,mk .
1

However, a more sophisticated choice for gk is not precluded. For example, an iterative choice
that maximizes the SINR (instead of the SNR) could be considered for gk .
We then note that the estimated SINR, defined as,
ρ
b k fk |2
· |gk† H
K
[
SINRk ,
P
b k fm |2
1 + Kρ · m6=k |gk† H

(20)

b k in the form of g† H
b
is only dependent on H
k k . Building on this fact, each user generates {βk, ℓ },
defined as,

(k)

b k,ℓ where u
bk,ℓ = gtr, mk .
βk, ℓ , gk† u

(21)

µk,ℓ , QBcorr, amp (|βk,ℓ |) , νk,ℓ , QBcorr, phase (∠βk,ℓ ) .

(22)

ℓ

It then quantizes the amplitude and phase of βk,ℓ for some choice of Bcorr, amp and Bcorr, phase
and feeds them back

For both ϕk,ℓ and νk,ℓ , without loss in generality, relative phases with respect to ϕk,1 and νk,1
(that is, ϕk,ℓ − ϕk,1 and νk,ℓ − νk,1) can be reported.
The mappings between the quantities of interest and the approximated quantities as well as
the feedback overhead needed from each user to implement the proposed scheme are described
in Table I. While the feedback overhead increases linearly with P (the rank of the channel
approximation), there are diminishing returns in terms of channel representation accuracy since
b k are sub-dominant as P increases (and are eventually limited by Lk ).
the clusters captured in H

Thus, it is useful to select P to trade-off these two conflicting objectives.

Following the above discussion, the k-th user feeds back the P × 5 matrix Pk , defined as


nk1 γk,1
0
µk,1
0


 nk γ

ϕ
−
ϕ
µ
ν
−
ν
k,2
k,2
k,1
k,2
k,2
k,1
 2

Pk ,  .
(23)
,
..
..
..
..
 ..

.
.
.
.


k
nP γk,P ϕk,P − ϕk,1 µk,P νk,P − νk,1

12

TABLE I: Mappings between quantities describing Hk and the approximated quantities, and
their feedback overhead.
Quantity of Interest

Approximated Quantity

Array steering vector at base-station end (vk,ℓ )

Base-station beam indices

Feedback Overhead

(nkℓ )
(k)
(SNRrx, ℓ )

P · log2 (N )

Gain of cluster coefficient (|αk,ℓ |)

Received SNR in beam alignment

Phase of cluster coefficient (∠αk,ℓ )

Estimated phase in beam alignment (∠b
str,k,ℓ )

(P − 1) · Best, phase

Array steering vector at user end (uk,ℓ )

Amplitude of codebook correlation (|βk,ℓ |)

P · Bcorr, amp

Phase of codebook correlation (∠βk,ℓ )

(P − 1) · Bcorr, phase

b k as follows
and the base-station approximates gk† H
bk
gk† H

=

P
X
ℓ=1

†

µk,ℓ γk,ℓ · ej(ϕk,ℓ +νk,ℓ ) · ftr,nkℓ .

P · BSNR

(24)

b k is represented as a linear combination of the top-P beams as estimated
In other words, gk† H
from Ftr in the initial beam alignment phase. The weights in this linear combination correspond

to the relative strengths of the clusters as distinguished by the codebook resolution (at both
ends).
The base-station uses the channel matrix constructed for each user based on its feedback
b k ) and generates a good beamformer structure, illustrated in the next result,
information (gk† H
for use in multi-user transmissions.

Proposition 1. The zeroforcing beamformer structure is one where for every user that is si[ m , m 6= k with
multaneously scheduled, the beam fk nulls the multi-user interference in SINR

[ m as given in (20). The beams {fm } in the zeroforcing structure are the unit-norm column
SINR
−1
vectors of the Nt × K matrix H† HH† , where H is the K × Nt matrix given as

† 

PP


j(ϕ1,ℓ +ν1,ℓ )
†b
· ftr,n1ℓ
g1 H 1
ℓ=1 µ1,ℓ γ1,ℓ · e

† 

 †
  PP

j(ϕ2,ℓ +ν2,ℓ )
 gH

b  
2
µ
γ
·
e
·
f
2,ℓ
2,ℓ
tr,n
 2 2  

ℓ=1
ℓ
H=
=
(25)


.
.
.

 

..
.
.


 

† 
 P
† b
P
j(ϕK,ℓ +νK,ℓ )
gK H K
· ftr,nK
ℓ=1 µK,ℓ γK,ℓ · e
ℓ

Proof. See Appendices A and B.

13

IV. U PPER B OUNDS

FOR

Rsum

We are interested in benchmarking the performance of the zeroforcing structure against an
upper bound on Rsum . The goal of optimizing Rsum over {fk , gk } with perfect channel state
information {Hk } is a non-convex optimization problem [42]–[44] that appears to be complicated. In this context, an alternate formulation based on the signal-to-leakage and noise ratio
metric [45] that simultaneously maximizes the array gain seen by the k-th user, |gk† Hk fk |2 , and

†
minimizes the interfering array gain seen by the other users, |gm
Hm fk |2 , m 6= k is relevant.

Since these objectives are in some sense conflicting and can be weighed differently, we consider
the composite metric
SLNRk ,

ηk,k |gk† Hk fk |2
P
†
1 + m6=k ηm,k |gm
Hm fk |2

(26)

for an appropriate set of weighting factors ηm,k ≥ 0 with m, k ∈ {1, · · · , K}.
A. Upper Bound Motivated by the Zeroforcing Structure
Building on Prop. 1, we now develop an upper bound for Rsum motivated by the zeroforcing
structure. In this direction, we consider a signal-to-leakage-type metric equivalent of (26) based
bk
on the estimated channel matrix H
\k ,
SLNR

b k fk |2
ηk,k |gk† H
P
† b
1 + m6=k ηm,k |gm
Hm fk |2

(27)

for an appropriate set of weighting factors ηm,k ≥ 0 with m, k ∈ {1, · · · , K}.
b † gm } and {ηm,k } are known at the base-station, the choice
Proposition 2. Assuming that {H
m
\k is given by the generalized eigenvector structure
of fk that maximizes SLNR

−1
P
b † gm g † H
bm
b † gk
INt + m6=k ηm,k H
H
m
m
k
fk = 
.
−1
P
†
† b
†
b
b
INt + m6=k ηm,k Hm gm gm Hm
H k gk

(28)

Proof. See Appendix C.

Several remarks are in order at this stage.
•

In the case where ηm,k are set to zero for all m 6= k (that is, the focus is not on interference
management), the solution in (28) reduces to
PP
−j(ϕk,ℓ +νk,ℓ )
b † gk
· ftr,nkℓ
H
ℓ=1 µk,ℓ γk,ℓ · e
k
.
=
fk =
P
P
b † gk k
µk,ℓ γk,ℓ · e−j(ϕk,ℓ +νk,ℓ ) · ftr,nk
kH
k

ℓ=1

ℓ

(29)

14

This is not surprising, and the base-station greedily steers a beam along the weighted set of
top-P beams from Ftr for the k-th user. In other words, the base-station generates a set of
transmit weights that are matched to the transmit angular spread of the channel as identified
by the resolution of Ftr .

•

In the case where ηm,k = 0 except if m = k or m = m′ (for a specific m′ 6= k), it can be
seen that fk reduces to



b † gk − ηm′ ,k · g† ′ H
b m′ H
b † gk · H
b † ′ gm′
H
k
m
k
m


.
fk =
b † gk − ηm′ ,k · g† ′ H
b m′ H
b † gk · H
b † ′ gm′
H
k

m

k

(30)

m

In other words, the specific design of fk in (30) removes a certain component of the beam
corresponding to the m′ -th user from the beam corresponding to the k-th user.
•

In the general case, while it gets much harder to simplify fk in (28), it can be seen that fk
has the structure
fk =

PK

b b†
m=1 δm,k Hm gm
PK b
b†
m=1 δm,k Hm gm

(31)

b † gm }
for some complex scalars δbm,k . In other words, the optimal fk is in the span of {H
m
b
with the weights {δm,k } that make the linear combination being a complicated function of
•

b † gm }.
{ηm,k } as well as {H
m

The above observations are not entirely surprising given the Karhunen-Loève interpretation
of the eigen-space of the channel(s) [11], [51], [52] and utilizing an expansion of fk on
this basis. Such an expansion is also consistent with Prop. 1 which shows that in the pure

•

interference management case (ηm,k → ∞ for all m 6= k), fk is given as
PK
b † gm
Gm,k H
m
fk = Pm=1
(32)
K
†
b
m=1 Gm,k Hm gm
−1
where the K × K matrix G = HH† .
b † gm is itself a linear combination of the beams
On the other hand, from (24), we note that H
m

from Ftr . Thus, fk in (28) is a linear combination of beams from Ftr . In other words, the
design of fk is equivalent to a search over N scalar (complex) weights, where N denotes
the size of the initial beam alignment codebook at the base-station end.

\k (not even
With this interpretation, while Prop. 2 considers only the maximization of SLNR
b k ), we can consider the optimization of Rsum over fk from a class Fk ,
the sum rate with H

15

defined as
Fk ,

(

fk : fk =

PN

Pn=1
N

δn,k ftr, n

such that δn,k ∈ C, k = 1, · · · , K

n=1 δn,k ftr, n

)

.

(33)

Theorem 1. Assume that the same multi-user beams gk as in the zeroforcing scheme are used
⋆
for reception at the k-th user. Let {δn,k
} be defined as the solution to the search over the complex

scalars {δn,k }
⋆
{δn,k
} = arg

max

{δn,k : fk ∈ Fk }

Rsum .

(34)

With gk as above and
fk =

PN

⋆
n=1 δn,k ftr, n
PN ⋆
n=1 δn,k ftr, n

,

(35)

we obtain an upper bound to the sum rate with the zeroforcing scheme.
The proof is trivial following the structure of fk in the zeroforcing scheme in (32) and the
definition of the class Fk in (33). Since the structure in (35) is obtained as a search over
scalar parameters, we call this upper bound a scalar optimization-based upper bound. Further,
while (35) is difficult to practically implement, it provides a benchmark to compare the realizable
zeroforcing scheme of Prop. 1.
Another important consequence of (35) is that the coefficients of fk for either the zeroforcing
or the upper bound are (in general) not of equal amplitude. Thus, fk has to be quantized for
implementation to ensure that the RF beamforming constraints are satisfied. In particular, we
compute b
fk with an appropriate quantization scheme as below
eB
eBamp (|fk (i)|) , ∠b
fk (i) = Q
(∠fk (i)) ,
|b
fk (i)| = Q
phase

(36)

e will be discussed in
and use them in transmissions for the k-th user. Good choices for Q(·)
Sec. V-C.

B. Bounding Rsum with an Alternating/Iterative Optimization
We now propose an iterative maximization algorithm to optimize Rsum over {fk , gk }. In this
approach, we first optimize the SLNR metric over fk (assuming gk is fixed), and then optimize
the SINR metric over gk (assuming fk is fixed). The algorithm is as follows:
(1)

1) Initialize {gk , k = 1, · · · , K} randomly.

16

2) For i = 1, · · · , Nstop , where Nstop is chosen according to a stopping criterion to determine
convergence:
•

(i)

(i)

With {gk = gk , k = 1, · · · , K} fixed, compute fk as the solution to the following
optimization
(i)

fk = arg max max SLNRk .
fk

(37)

{ηm,k }

From Lemma 1 in Appendix A, the solution to the above problem with {ηm,k } fixed
can be seen to be


−1
P
(i) (i) †
(i)
INt + m6=k ηm,k H†m gm gm Hm
H†k gk
fk = 
.
−1
P
† (i) (i) †
† (i)
INt + m6=k ηm,k Hm gm gm Hm
H k gk

(38)

This candidate fk has to be used to compute SLNRk for all possible weights {ηm,k }
(i)

and optimized to produce {fk }.
•

(i)

(i+1)

as the solution to the following

= arg max SINRk .

(39)

With {fk = fk , k = 1, · · · , K} fixed, compute gk
optimization
(i+1)

gk

gk

Again, from Lemma 1 in Appendix A, we have
(i+1)
gk

=

(Nstop )

3) Compute Rsum with {fk

I Nr

ρ X
(i) (i),† †
Hk fm
fm Hk
+
K m6=k
(Nstop +1)

} and {gk

!−1

(i)

Hk fk .

(40)

} for a (potential) upper bound.

Numerical studies show that for almost all channel realizations, the proposed algorithm converges
in a small number of steps (Nstop ≈ 10) to lead to a tolerable level of difference between
successive iterates of Rsum . Further, while we are unable to theoretically establish that the
proposed algorithm results in an upper bound to Rsum , numerical studies (see Sec. V-D) suggest
that it leads to an upper bound for almost all channel realizations.
V. N UMERICAL S TUDIES
We now present numerical studies in a single-cell downlink framework to illustrate the
advantages of the proposed beamforming solutions. The channel model from (1) is used to
generate a channel matrix with Lk = 6 clusters, AoDs uniformly distributed in a 120o × 30o

coverage area, and AoAs uniformly distributed in a 120o × 120o coverage area for each of the
k = 1, · · · , Kcell users in the cell. The AoD spread captures a traditional three-sector approach

17

with a 30o zenith coverage and the AoA spread corresponds to the assumption of the use of
multiple subarrays [9] with the best subarray limited to a 120o ×120o coverage. Lk = 6 is justified
from millimeter wave channel measurements reported in [9], [12]. The antenna dimensions
assumed in these studies are Ntx = 16 and Ntz = 4 at the base-station end, and Nrx = 2 and
Nrz = 2 at each user. We consider simultaneous transmissions from the base-station to K = 2
out of the Kcell users in the cell.
In terms of user scheduling, commonly used criteria include a round robin or a proportionate
fair scheduler. On the other hand, a recently proposed directional scheduler [24] leverages the
smaller beamwidths afforded by large antenna dimensions to schedule users with dominant
clusters that are spatially well-separated. In this work, the first of the K = 2 users is scheduled
randomly and the second user is chosen to ensure that ftr,n21 6= ftr,n11 . In other words, the
considered scheduler implements a directional avoidance protocol with the dominant cluster in
the channel of the first user separated spatially from the dominant cluster in the channel of the
second user, as parsed by Ftr . With this scheduler, we now primarily focus on the beamforming
aspects.
For the initial beam alignment codebooks, based on the beam broadening principles proposed
in [19], Figs. 1(a)-(d) illustrate the beam patterns in the azimuth plane for codebooks of sizes
N = 32, N = 16, N = 8 and N = 4, respectively, to cover the 120o × 30o AoD space with a
16×4 planar array at the base-station side. The optimization proposed in [19] results in a discrete
Fourier transform (DFT) codebook solution for N = 32 and N = 16. From Fig. 1, we observe
that a beam codebook of small size (e.g., N = 4) where each beam offers a broad directional
coverage can reduce the acquisition latency at the cost of peak and/or worst-case array gain.
On the other hand, a beam codebook of large size (e.g., N = 32) where each beam can offer
precision in terms of beamspace (and array gain) comes at the cost of acquisition latency. For
the codebooks at the user end, two codebook sizes (M = 4 for a reduced acquisition latency
and M = 16 for performance improvement at the cost of acquisition latency) are considered
with similar beam design principles as for the base-station side.
At this stage, it is worth noting that a number of system parameters impact the performance
of the proposed multi-user schemes such as: i) Granularity of Ftr and Gtrk (initial beam alignment
codebook sizes), ii) Coarseness of channel approximation (rank-P ), iii) Finite-rate feedback of
channel reconstruction parameters, and iv) Quantization of the resulting multi-user beams.

20

17.5

17.5

15

15
Array gain (in dB)

Array gain (in dB)

18
20

12.5
10
7.5

12.5
10
7.5

5

5

2.5

2.5

0
25

35

45

55

0
25

65 75 85 95 105 115 125 135 145 155
Azimuth angle (in degrees)

35

45

55

(a)
15

(b)
12.5

12.5

10

10

Array gain (in dB)

Array gain (in dB)

65 75 85 95 105 115 125 135 145 155
Azimuth angle (in degrees)

7.5

7.5

5

5
2.5

2.5

0
25

35

45

55

65 75 85 95 105 115 125 135 145 155
Azimuth angle (in degrees)

(a)

0
25

35

45

55

65 75 85 95 105 115 125 135 145 155
Azimuth angle (in degrees)

(b)

Fig. 1: Beam patterns in the azimuth plane of four different base-station codebooks, all covering
a 120o × 30o coverage area, with (a) N = 32, (b) N = 16, (c) N = 8, and (d) N = 4 elements
in Ftr .

A. Impact of Initial Beam Alignment Codebook
In the first study, we consider the relative performance of the zeroforcing scheme (proposed
in Prop. 1) relative to a baseline beam steering scheme with different initial beam alignment
codebooks. We assume that the system has infinite-precision feedback of channel reconstruction
parameters and infinite-precision resolution in the quantization of multi-user beams. We also
compare the performance of the proposed schemes with the zeroforcing scheme presented in [23],

19
1

1

0.9

0.9

0.8

0.8
N=8

N = 16

0.7

0.7

0.6

0.6

CDF

CDF

N=4

0.5

0.5

0.4

0.4

0.3

0.3

0.2

0.2

Beam steering
Zeroforcing, P = 2
Zeroforcing, P = 4
Zeroforcing in [23], [24]

0.1
0
2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

N = 32

Beam steering
Zeroforcing, P = 2
Zeroforcing, P = 4
Zeroforcing in [23], [24]

0.1
0

14

2

3

4

5

6

Sum rate (in bps/Hz)

7

8

(a)

10

11

12

13

14

(b)

1

1

0.9

0.9

0.8

0.8
N=4

N=8

0.7

0.7
0.6

CDF

0.6

CDF

9

Sum rate (in bps/Hz)

N = 16

0.5
0.4

0.4

0.3

0.3

0.2

Beam steering
Zeroforcing, P = 2
Zeroforcing, P = 4
Zeroforcing in [23], [24]

0.1
0
2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Sum rate (in bps/Hz)

(c)

11

12

13

14

N = 32

0.5

0.2

Beam steering
Zeroforcing, P = 2
Zeroforcing, P = 4
Zeroforcing in [23], [24]

0.1
0
2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

Sum rate (in bps/Hz)

(d)

Fig. 2: CDF of sum rates for a beam steering scheme and the proposed zeroforcing scheme for
different choices of N with M = 4 in (a) and (b), and M = 16 in (c) and (d).

[24], where the system is assumed to be able to find perfectly aligned directional beams in the
training phase. Fig. 2 illustrates this comparative performance with different choices of P in
b k and different codebook sizes (N and M).
approximating gk† H

While it is intuitive that there should be diminishing performance as P increases (since

increasing P beyond the channel rank Lk is not expected to improve performance), whether
this saturation in performance is observed with a low-rank channel approximation is dependent
on the resolution of the codebooks. In particular, increasing P when the codebook granularity

20

is already poor (small M and N) does not lead to any performance improvement than observed
with P = 1 (beam steering). On the other hand, with a high resolution for Ftr (large N), even
a rank-2 approximation appears to be sufficient to reap most of the performance improvement
gains. This is because the performance of the baseline (beam steering) scheme is already quite
good and significant relative improvement over it with increasing P has a lower likelihood unless
the channel has a large number of similar gain clusters (a low-probability event). When M is
large and N is small, the beam steering performance is poor and the channel can be better
approximated with the higher codebook resolution of Gtrk leading to a sustained performance
improvement for even up to P = 4. For example, with N = 4 or 8 and M = 16, zeroforcing
based on a rank-4 channel approximation leads to around 2 bps/Hz improvement at the median
level.
In terms of performance comparison, note that the scheme from [23], [24] assumes P = 1
but infinite-precision in terms of beam alignment (N = M → ∞). Thus, it is not surprising
that as N and M increase, the performance of the proposed schemes compare well with that
of [23], [24]. For lower codebook resolutions, the proposed schemes overcome the codebook
disadvantage by leveraging a better channel approximation as P increases. These observations
b k (which in turn determines
suggest that the optimal choice of the rank in approximating g† H
k

the feedback overhead) depends not only on the rank of the true channel Hk , but also on

the codebook granularities. In general, a higher P (and feedback overhead) is necessary if the
codebook resolution is rich enough at the user end to allow the parsing of the channel better,
but poor enough at the base-station end to allow a sustained performance improvement with
increasing P . In particular, we provide the following heuristic design guidelines based on our
studies
P =

B. Quantizer Design





 1 if M and N are small

2 if M is small and N is large



 4 if M is large.

(41)

Towards the second study, we utilize different quantization functions to quantize the different
parameters needed in channel reconstruction. For a phase term θ with a dynamic range of [0, 2π)
(e.g., ∠bstr,k,ℓ and ∠βk,ℓ ), we use a uniform quantizer of the form
 B 
2
2π
·θ ,
QB (θ) = B · round
2
2π

(42)

21
1

1

0.9

0.9

0.8

0.8
N=8

N = 32

0.7

0.7

0.6

0.6

CDF

CDF

N=8

0.5
0.4

N = 32

0.5
0.4

Beam steering
Zeroforcing, P = 2, B

0.3

SNR

=2

0.2

Zeroforcing, P = 4, B

0.1

Zeroforcing, P = 2, B SNR = 4

SNR

=2

0.3

Beam steering
Zeroforcing, P = 2, B

0.2

Zeroforcing, P = 4, B
Zeroforcing, P = 2, B

0.1

Zeroforcing, P = 4, B SNR = 4

Zeroforcing, P = 4, B

0

0
2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

2

4

6

8

Sum rate (in bps/Hz)

12

14

16

est,phase
est,phase
est,phase

=2
=2
=4
=4

18

20

Sum rate (in bps/Hz)

(a)

(b)

1

1

0.9

0.9

0.8

0.8
N=8

N = 32

N=8

0.7

0.7

0.6

0.6

CDF

CDF

10

est,phase

0.5
0.4

N = 32

0.5
0.4

Beam steering
Zeroforcing, P = 2, B

0.3
0.2

corr

=2

Zeroforcing, P = 4, B corr = 2
Zeroforcing, P = 2, B corr = 4

0.1

0.3
0.2

Zeroforcing, quant., P = 2
Zeroforcing, quant., P = 4
Zeroforcing, unquant., P = 2
Zeroforcing, unquant., P = 4

0.1

Zeroforcing, P = 4, B corr = 4
0

0
2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

0

2

Sum rate (in bps/Hz)

(c)

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Sum rate (in bps/Hz)

(d)

Fig. 3: CDF of sum rates of the different multi-user schemes with finite-rate feedback of (a) only
received SNRs, (b) only received signal phases, (c) only user side cross-correlation information,
and (d) all the parameters quantized simultaneously.

where round(·) stands for a function that rounds off the underlying quantity to the nearest integer.
For an amplitude term α with a dynamic range of [0, 1] (e.g., |βk,ℓ |), we use a non-uniform
quantizer of the form


round (2B − 1) · α
.
QB (α) =
2B − 1

(43)

The reason for scaling with respect to 2B − 1 in (43) instead of by 2B is because we want the
quantized set to include both 0 and 1 for proper cross-correlation quantization. For example, in

22
(k)

the typical case where the multi-user reception beam gk = gtr,mk , we have |βk,1 | = 1 and the
1

use of a uniform amplitude quantizer will not allow the correct reproduction of this important
quantity at the base-station end.
Quantization of the SNR is performed on a dB scale rather than on a linear scale. This is
intuitive since SNR measurements have a wide dynamic range. The proposed SNR quantizer
is similar to quantizations considered in Fourth Generation (4G) systems. In particular, for a
(k) 
received SNR term ̺ (in dB) with a theoretically unbounded range (e.g., 10 log10 SNRrx, ℓ ), we

first cap ̺ to a maximum value of ̺max and quantize a spread of ∆ (in dB) with 2B quantization
levels (denoted as ̺i ) as follows:
̺i = ̺max −

∆
· i, i = 0, · · · , 2B − 1.
−1

2B

(44)

The quantization of ̺ is given as
QB (̺) = ̺i⋆ where i⋆ = arg

min

i=0,··· ,2B −1

|̺ − ̺i |.

(45)

The parameters ̺max and ∆ correspond to the maximum quantizer level value and the distance
between adjacent quantizer levels, respectively. In our numerical studies, we use ̺max = 30 dB
with ∆ = 24 dB for B = 2 bits, and ∆ = 30 dB for B = 4 bits.
A similar approach is pursued in quantizing the amplitudes of the multi-user beam. While
these amplitudes do not span a wide range, the relative variation across the antenna array can
show wide variations. Specifically, the infinite-precision zeroforcing beams generated in Prop. 1
are quantized to meet the RF constraints in (7) as described next. Since kfk k = 1, we assume
that on average fk (i) ≈

√1 .
Nt

By scaling |fk (i)|2 by Nt , we can ensure that 10 log10 (Nt · |fk (i)|2 )

is centered around 0 dB and for this quantity, we generate 2B quantization levels in dB scale
(denoted as fi ) corresponding to a step size of ∆f (in dB) as follows:


fi = ∆f · i + 1 − 2B−1 , i = 0, · · · , 2B − 1.

With these levels that are spaced ∆f apart, we obtain the quantized beam weights as

 0
if 10 log10 (Nt · |fk (i)|2 ) < −∆f · (2B−1 − 1)
1
b
e
|fk (i)| = QB (|fk (i)|) = √ ·
f ⋆
Nt  10 20j otherwise,

(46)

(47)

where



j ⋆ = arg min 10 log10 Nt · |fk (i)|2 − fj provided 10 log10 Nt · |fk (i)|2 > fj .
j

(48)

23

The constraint in (48) ensures that

P b
2
i |fk (i)| ≤ 1. In our numerical studies, we use ∆f = 1 dB

for B = 4 bits leading to a range of −7 to 8 dB for fi . We also use ∆f = 0.25 dB for B = 6
eB (∠fk (i))),
bits leading to a range of −7.75 to 8 dB for fi . For the phase quantities (that is, Q

we reuse QB (∠fk (i)) as in (42).
C. Finite-Rate Feedback

With the quantizer design as described in Sec. V-B, we now consider the impact of finite-rate
feedback of the quantities of interest necessary for the channel reconstruction step. As noted
from Table I, each user quantizes and feeds back to the base-station: i) the base-station beam
indices, ii) the received SNRs, iii) the received signal’s phases, and iv) user side codebook
correlation information (amplitude and phases). To reduce clutter in presentation, in our studies
illustrated in Fig. 3, we only focus on the N = 8 and N = 32 codebooks for beam alignment
with M = 16 at the user side. Fig. 3(a) considers the impact of BSNR (the number of bits used in
received SNR quantization) while infinite-precision is used for the signal phases and codebook
correlation. This figure shows that the proposed scheme is robust to BSNR in the sense that for
both the P = 2 and P = 4 cases, the performance improvement is minimal as BSNR is increased
from 2 bits to 4 bits.
On the other hand, Fig. 3(b) considers the impact of Best, phase (the number of bits used
in received signal phase quantization) while infinite-precision is used for received SNR and
codebook correlation. In the third experiment, we study the impact of codebook correlation
quantization with infinite-precision for the other two quantities. To simplify this investigation,
we assume that Bcorr, phase = Bcorr, amp = Bcorr and Fig. 3(c) considers the impact of Bcorr
on performance. Both Figs. 3(b) and (c) show that increasing Best, phase or Bcorr has maximal
impact on performance for large P . In other words, if the channel approximation gets better,
it becomes pertinent to quantize the phase terms and codebook correlation information in the
channel reconstruction with a finer resolution.
While Figs. 3(a)-(c) study the quantization of each parameter of interest separately, we now
consider the impact of finite-rate quantization of all the parameters necessary for channel reconstruction (relative to infinite-precision quantization). For this, we consider the case where
BSNR = Best, phase = Bcorr, amp = Bcorr, phase = 3 bits with M = 16. From Fig. 3(d), we observe
that the proposed joint quantization scheme performs comparable with a scheme that uses infiniteprecision for all the parameters of interest.

24

TABLE II: Feedback overhead (Bfeedback ) for different choices of P and N
N =4

N =8

N = 16

N = 32

P =2

14

16

18

20

P =4

44

48

52

56

At this stage, it is important to note that the feedback overhead of ϕk,ℓ and νk,ℓ can be
combined6 since they are always used in the form ϕk,ℓ + νk,ℓ (see (24)). Thus, based on the
above studies, we make the following heuristic design guidelines on the feedback overhead
BSNR = 2 bits, Best, phase + Bcorr, phase = Bcorr, amp = P bits.

(49)

Combining this information with Table I, the total feedback overhead from each user is given
as
Bfeedback = P · [log2 (N) + BSNR + Bcorr, amp ] + (P − 1) · [Best, phase + Bcorr, phase ] (in bits)
(50)
= P · [log2 (N) + 2 + P ] + (P − 1) · P

(51)

= P · [log2 (N) + 2P + 1] bits.

(52)

Bfeedback is presented in Table II for the choices P ∈ {2, 4} and N ∈ {4, 8, 16, 32}. From
Table II, a 56 bit control payload appears to be sufficient to convey the information necessary
for multi-user beamforming across different choices of M, N and P . On a first glance, while this
may appear to be onerous, similar feedback overheads are currently considered viable in 3GPP
5G-NR design. In particular, two types of feedback methods are being studied [41, Sec. 8.2.1.6.3,
pp. 24-26]: i) Type-I feedback of both the beam indices and RSRPs of the top-4 beams, and ii)
a more general Type-II feedback that can include feedback of covariance matrices, co-phasing
factors with different codebook structures, etc. Further, the time-scales at which this information
has to be reported is on the order of the coherence time of the channel (which varies from a
few milliseconds at high speeds to a few hundreds of milliseconds in an indoor or low speed
scenario [10], [40]) allowing multiple long PUCCH instances for beam reporting. Also, this
6

Similarly, it might be envisioned that the feedback of γk,ℓ and µk,ℓ can be combined, but their dynamic ranges are different.

Feedback overhead reduction could be a useful topic of study in future research.

25

control information can be fed back on legacy carriers such as 4G links in a non-standalone
deployment. Thus, the feedback overhead necessary for realizing the proposed schemes are
practically viable.
D. Quantization of Multi-User Beams and Comparison with Upper Bounds
In the third study, the effect of quantizing the multi-user beams to ensure that it fits the RF
precoder constraints as in (7) is considered. In general, if a low rate quantization is used (Bamp or
Bphase ) as P increases, the resultant multi-user beam’s sum rate performance could be worse than
that with beam steering. In particular, from Fig. 4(a), we observe that a higher phase resolution
(Bphase ) is necessary for improved performance as the codebook resolution improves (large N) or
when P increases. On the other hand, from Fig. 4(b), we observe that an amplitude resolution
Bamp ) on the order of 4-6 bits can produce a performance comparable with the unquantized
scheme.
In Fig. 5, we finally compare the performance of the proposed zeroforcing scheme with the
beam steering scheme and the bounds established in Sec. IV. We also benchmark the performance
with a fully-digital system employing: i) maximal ratio transmission/maximal ratio combining
(MRT/MRC) beams in the initial alignment phase, and ii) a zeroforcing scheme performed using
the MRT/MRC beams as in [23], [24]. Note that the MRT/MRC scheme is different from that
employed in [23], [24] where perfect beam steering vectors are used in deriving the zeroforcing
structure. In terms of differences between these structures, the readers are referred to [18]. For
the proposed scheme, an M = 16 codebook is used at the user end. Figs. 5(a)-(b) and Fig. 6
illustrate the trends with N = 8, N = 32, and N = 256 codebooks, respectively. For N = 256,
we employ a DFT codebook at the base-station covering the 120◦ × 30◦ AoD space.
With low-resolution quantization, we note that there is a considerable performance gap between
the zeroforcing scheme and the scalar optimization-based upper bound (up to 2 bps/Hz). On the
other hand, this gap reduces as N increases suggesting the good performance of the zeroforcing
scheme. Nevertheless, the performance gap between the proposed zeroforcing scheme and the
upper bounds suggests the possible utility of more advanced feedback mechanisms, a topic for
future research. In all the plots, there is a considerable gap between the performance of the
upper bounds with the fully-digital system. Plausible explanations for this observation include
the use of small arrays at the user end (2 × 2) and Lk = 6 clusters in the channel. A more
complex hybrid precoding architecture achieved by optimally choosing FDig with respect to

26

some performance metric may assist in bridging this gap. It is also to be pointed out that while
the alternate optimization-based sum rate serves as an upper bound for most channel realizations,
for some realizations (especially at low SINR values where the SLNR optimization has a different
behavior than the sum rate maximization), this connection breaks down.
1

1

0.9

0.9

0.8

0.8
N=8

N = 32

0.7

0.7

0.6

0.6

CDF

CDF

N=8

0.5

0.5

0.4

0.4

0.3

0.3

0.2

Beam steering
Zeroforcing, B

0.1

Zeroforcing, B

N = 32

0.2
phase
phase

=3

Beam steering
Zeroforcing, B

0.1

=5

0

Zeroforcing, B

amp
amp

=4
=6

0
2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

2

3

4

Sum rate (in bps/Hz)

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

Sum rate (in bps/Hz)

(a)

(b)

Fig. 4: CDF of sum rates of the different schemes with quantization constraints on the multi-user
beam’s (a) phases and (b) amplitudes.

VI. C ONCLUDING R EMARKS
The focus of this work has been the development of a feedback mechanism to convey estimates
of certain quantities of interest from an initial beam alignment phase to enable the base-station to
construct an advanced RF precoding structure for multi-user transmissions. These quantities of
interest include the top-P (where P ≥ 1) base-station side beam indices, phases and amplitudes
of an appropriate received signal estimate, as well as the cross-correlation information of the
beams at the user end. This feedback is leveraged to reconstruct/estimate a rank-P approximation
of the channel matrix of interest at the base-station end and generate a zeroforcing structure
for multi-user interference management. Numerical studies show that the additional feedback
overhead is marginal, but the relative performance improvement over a simplistic beam steering
scheme is significant even with a very coarse initial beam alignment codebook.
This study reinforces the importance of the development of low-complexity (in terms of
feedback overhead as well as implementation) yet good (in terms of performance and structure)

1

0.9

0.9

0.8

0.8

0.7

0.7

0.6

0.6

CDF

CDF

27
1

0.5
0.4

Beam steering
Zeroforcing, P = 2
Zeroforcing, P = 4
Scalar optimization
Alt. optimization
Fully-digital

0.5
0.4

0.3

0.3

Beam steering
Zeroforcing, P = 2
Zeroforcing, P = 4
Scalar optimization
Alt. optimization
Fully-digital

0.2
0.1

0.2
0.1

0

0
2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

2

4

6

Sum rate (in bps/Hz)

8

10

12

14

16

18

Sum rate (in bps/Hz)

(a)

(b)

Fig. 5: CDF of sum rates of the multi-user schemes compared with the two upper bounds using
a M = 16 codebook with (a) N = 8, (b) N = 32.

1

Beam steering
Zeroforcing, P = 2
Zeroforcing, P = 4
Scalar optimization
Alt. optimization
Fully-digital

0.9
0.8
0.7

CDF

0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Sum Rate (bps/Hz)

Fig. 6: CDF of sum rates of the multi-user schemes compared with the two upper bounds using
a M = 16 codebook with N = 256.

feedback techniques for large-MIMO systems [47], [48]. While this work has only scratched the
surface of such techniques, a number of possible future research directions are worth considering.
Benchmarking the performance of any proposed feedback technique with a tight upper bound
(for the sum rate) is an area of fundamental difficulties due to the non-convex nature of the
problem [42]–[44] and is richly rewarding. Understanding the fundamental limits of hybrid

28

precoders beyond the phase-only control architecture that is common in the literature, as well
as providing a directional intuition into the structure of the precoder construction (in contrast
to a black box optimization solution) are of importance in practical implementations. While the
solutions proposed in this work can be readily extended to polarization-diversity transmissions,
extending it to the case where the users possess two (or more) RF chains with the base-station
communicating over two spatial layers is of importance from a 3GPP 5G-NR deployment
perspective. Study of different hybrid beamforming architectures such as the sub-connected
structure in [35] and comparison with the proposed scheme(s) would be of interest. Sensitivity
of such advanced schemes to impairments such as Doppler and phase noise are also worth
exploring more carefully.
A PPENDIX
A. Generalized Eigenvector Solution
We need the following statement on the generalized eigenvector solution to the standard
optimization that will be repeatedly considered in this work.
Lemma 1. If B is an n × n positive definite matrix, then the principal square-root (denoted as

B1/2 ) exists and is invertible (denoted as B−1/2 ). Further, if A is another n × n positive semidefinite matrix, the following optimization over n × 1 unit-norm vectors is well-understood [24],
[44]


B−1/2 · Dom eig B−1/2 A B−1/2
f † Af
=
(53)
fopt = arg max †
f : kf k=1 f Bf
kB−1/2 · Dom eig (B−1/2 A B−1/2 ) k
with Dom eig(·) denoting the dominant eigenvector operation of the underlying matrix. In the

special case where A = ww† is a rank-1 matrix for some column vector w, then fopt reduces
to fopt =

B−1 w
.
kB−1 wk

Note that the generalized eigenvector of a matrix pair (A, B) is a vector x that solves the
problem Ax = σBx for some scalar σ. From this description, it can be seen that fopt in (53) is
the dominant unit-norm generalized eigenvector of the matrix pair (A, B).
B. Proof of Prop. 1
[ m in (20), the zeroforcing structure corresponds to the construcGiven the expression for SINR
tion {fm } such that
b k fm
gk† H

2

= 0, m 6= k, {m, k} ∈ 1, · · · , K.

(54)

29

An elementary computation shows that by setting fm , m = 1, · · · , K as in the statement of the
proposition, we can ensure the condition in (54).
C. Proof of Prop. 2
\k as
Since fk† fk = 1, we can write SLNR



b † gk g † H
b k · fk
ηk,k · fk† · H
k
k
\k =


SLNR
.
P
† b
b †m gm gm
fk† · INt + m6=k ηm,k H
Hm · fk

(55)

The optimal structure of fk in the statement of the proposition follows directly from Lemma 1.

R EFERENCES
[1] F. Khan and Z. Pi, “An introduction to millimeter wave mobile broadband systems,” IEEE Commun. Magaz., vol. 49, no.
6, pp. 101–107, June 2011.
[2] N. Bhushan, J. Li, D. Malladi, R. Gilmore, D. Brenner, A. Damnjanovic, R. T. Sukhasvi, C. Patel, and S. Geirhofer,
“Network densification: The dominant theme for wireless evolution into 5G,” IEEE Commun. Magaz., vol. 52, no. 2, pp.
82–89, Feb. 2014.
[3] T. S. Rappaport, S. Sun, R. Mayzus, H. Zhao, Y. Azar, K. Wang, G. N. Wong, J. K. Schulz, M. K. Samimi, and F. Gutierrez,
“Millimeter wave mobile communications for 5G cellular: It will work!,” IEEE Access, vol. 1, pp. 335–349, 2013.
[4] F. Boccardi, R. W. Heath, Jr., A. Lozano, T. L. Marzetta, and P. Popovski, “Five disruptive technology directions for 5G,”
IEEE Commun. Magaz., vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 74–80, Feb. 2014.
[5] Aalto University, AT&T, BUPT, CMCC, Ericsson, Huawei, Intel, KT Corporation, Nokia, NTT DOCOMO, NYU, Qualcomm, Samsung, U. Bristol, and USC, “White paper on ‘5G channel model for bands up to 100 GHz’,” v2.3, Oct.
2016.
[6] 3GPP TR 38.901 V14.1.1 (2017-07), “Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; Study on Channel Model
for Frequencies from 0.5 to 100 GHz (Rel. 14),” July 2017.
[7] Y. Azar, G. N. Wong, K. Wang, R. Mayzus, J. K. Schulz, H. Zhao, F. J. Gutierrez, D. Hwang, and T. S. Rappaport, “28
GHz propagation measurements for outdoor cellular communications using steerable beam antennas in New York City,”
Proc. IEEE Intern. Conf. Commun., Budapest, Hungary, pp. 5143–5147, June 2013.
[8] S. Sun, T. S. Rappaport, T. A. Thomas, A. Ghosh, H. C. Nguyen, I. Z. Kovács, I. Rodriguez, O. H. Koymen, and A. Partyka,
“Investigation of prediction accuracy, sensitivity, and parameter stability of large-scale propagation path loss models for
5G wireless communications,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Tech., vol. 65, no. 5, pp. 2843–2860, May 2016.
[9] V. Raghavan, A. Partyka, L. Akhoondzadeh-Asl, M. A. Tassoudji, O. H. Koymen, and J. Sanelli, “Millimeter wave channel
measurements and implications for PHY layer design,” IEEE Trans. Ant. Propagat., vol. 65, no. 12, pp. 6521–6533, Dec.
2017.
[10] V. Raghavan, L. Akhoondzadeh-Asl, V. Podshivalov, J. Hulten, M. A. Tassoudji, O. H. Koymen, A. Sampath, and J. Li,
“Statistical blockage modeling and robustness of beamforming in millimeter wave systems,” Submitted to IEEE Trans.
Ant. Propagat., Available: [Online]. https://arxiv.org/abs/1801.03346.

30

[11] V. Raghavan and A. M. Sayeed, “Sublinear capacity scaling laws for sparse MIMO channels,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory,
vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 345–364, Jan. 2011.
[12] Qualcomm, “Clustering methodology and results based on omni-directional and azimuthal scans in 29 and 61 GHz,”
R1-161666, 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 #AH Channel Model, Ljubljana, Slovenia, Mar. 2016.
[13] F. Rusek, D. Persson, B. K. Lau, E. G. Larsson, T. L. Marzetta, O. Edfors, and F. Tufvesson, “Scaling up MIMO:
Opportunities and challenges with very large arrays,” IEEE Sig. Proc. Magaz., vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 40–60, Jan. 2013.
[14] S. Hur, T. Kim, D. J. Love, J. V. Krogmeier, T. A. Thomas, and A. Ghosh, “Millimeter wave beamforming for wireless
backhaul and access in small cell networks,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 61, no. 10, pp. 4391–4403, Oct. 2014.
[15] W. Roh, J.-Y. Seol, J. Park, B. Lee, J. Lee, Y. Kim, J. Cho, K. Cheun, and F. Aryanfar, “Millimeter-wave beamforming
as an enabling technology for 5G cellular communications: Theoretical feasibility and prototype results,” IEEE Commun.
Magaz., vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 106–113, Feb. 2014.
[16] J. Brady, N. Behdad, and A. M. Sayeed, “Beamspace MIMO for millimeter-wave communications: System architecture,
modeling, analysis and measurements,” IEEE Trans. Ant. Propagat., vol. 61, no. 7, pp. 3814–3827, July 2013.
[17] 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.
[18] V. Raghavan, S. Subramanian, J. Cezanne, and A. Sampath, “Directional beamforming for millimeter-wave MIMO
systems,” Proc. IEEE Global Telecommun. Conf., San Diego, CA, pp. 1–7, Dec. 2015, Extended version: [Online].
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/1601.02380.
[19] V. Raghavan, J. Cezanne, S. Subramanian, A. Sampath, and O. H. Koymen, “Beamforming tradeoffs for initial UE
discovery in millimeter-wave MIMO systems,” IEEE Journ. Sel. Topics in Sig. Proc., vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 543–559, Apr.
2016.
[20] S. Rangan, T. S. Rappaport, and E. Erkip, “Millimeter wave cellular networks: Potentials and challenges,” Proc. IEEE,
vol. 102, no. 3, pp. 366–385, Mar. 2014.
[21] A. Ghosh, T. A. Thomas, M. C. Cudak, R. Ratasuk, P. Moorut, F. W. Vook, T. S. Rappaport, G. R. MacCartney, Jr., S. Sun,
and S. Nie, “Millimeter-wave enhanced local area systems: A high data-rate approach for future wireless networks,” IEEE
Journ. Sel. Areas in Commun., vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 1152–1163, June 2014.
[22] S. Sun, T. S. Rappaport, R. W. Heath, Jr., A. Nix, and S. Rangan, “MIMO for millimeter wave wireless communications:
Beamforming, spatial multiplexing, or both?,” IEEE Commun. Magaz., vol. 52, no. 12, pp. 110–121, Dec. 2014.
[23] V. Raghavan, S. Subramanian, J. Cezanne, A. Sampath, O. H. Koymen, and J. Li, “Directional hybrid precoding in
millimeter-wave MIMO systems,” Proc. IEEE Global Telecommun. Conf., Washington, DC, pp. 1–7, Dec. 2016.
[24] V. Raghavan, S. Subramanian, J. Cezanne, A. Sampath, O. H. Koymen, and J. Li, “Single-user vs. multi-user precoding
for millimeter wave MIMO systems,” IEEE Journ. Sel. Areas in Commun., vol. 35, no. 6, pp. 1387–1401, June 2017.
[25] A. Li and C. Masouros, “Hybrid precoding and combining design for millimeter-wave multi-user MIMO based on SVD,”
Proc. IEEE Intern. Conf. on Commun., Paris, France, pp. 1–6, May 2017.
[26] X. Zhang, A. F. Molisch, and S. Y. Kung, “Variable-phase-shift-based RF-baseband codesign for MIMO antenna selection,”
IEEE Trans. Sig. Proc., vol. 53, no. 11, pp. 4091–4103, Nov. 2005.
[27] P. Sudarshan, N. B. Mehta, A. F. Molisch, and J. Zhang, “Channel statistics-based joint RF-baseband design for antenna
selection for spatial multiplexing,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 5, no. 12, pp. 3501–3511, Dec. 2006.
[28] V. Venkateswaran and A.-J. van der Veen, “Analog beamforming in MIMO communications with phase shift networks
and online channel estimation,” IEEE Trans. Sig. Proc., vol. 58, no. 8, pp. 4131–4143, Aug. 2010.
[29] A. Adhikary, E. Al Safadi, M. K. Samimi, R. Wang, G. Caire, T. S. Rappaport, and A. F. Molisch, “Joint spatial division
and multiplexing for mm-Wave channels,” IEEE Journ. Sel. Areas in Commun., vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 1239–1255, June 2014.

31

[30] A. Alkhateeb, O. El Ayach, G. Leus, and R. W. Heath, Jr., “Channel estimation and hybrid precoding for millimeter wave
cellular systems,” IEEE Journ. Sel. Topics in Sig. Proc., vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 831–846, Oct. 2014.
[31] 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.
[32] F. Sohrabi and W. Yu, “Hybrid digital and analog beamforming design for large-scale antenna arrays,” IEEE Journ. Sel.
Topics in Sig. Proc., vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 501–513, Apr. 2016.
[33] S. Noh, M. D. Zoltowski, and D. J. Love, “Training sequence design for feedback assisted hybrid beamforming in massive
MIMO systems,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 64, no. 1, pp. 187–200, Jan. 2016.
[34] T. E. Bogale, L. B. Le, A. Haghighat, and L. Vandendorpe, “On the number of RF chains and phase shifters, and scheduling
design with hybrid analog-digital beamforming,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 3311–3326, May
2016.
[35] X. Gao, L. Dai, S. Han, C-L. I, and R. W. Heath, Jr., “Energy-efficient hybrid analog and digital precoding for mmWave
MIMO systems with large antenna arrays,” IEEE Journ. Sel. Areas in Commun., vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 998–1009, Apr. 2016.
[36] R. L. Magueta, D. Castanheira, A. Silva, R. Dinis, and A. Gameiro, “Hybrid iterative space-time equalization for multi-user
mmW massive MIMO systems,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 65, no. 2, pp. 608–620, Feb. 2017.
[37] H. Krishnaswamy and H. Hashemi, “Integrated beamforming arrays,” In mm-Wave Silicon Technology, (A. M. Niknejad
and H. Hashemi, Eds.), Springer, NY, pp. 243–295, 2008.
[38] G-L. Huang, S-G. Zhou, T-H. Chio, H-T. Hui, and T-S. Yeo, “A low profile and low sidelobe wideband slot antenna array
fed by an amplitude-tapering waveguide feed-network,” IEEE Trans. Ant. Propagat., vol. 63, no. 1, pp. 419–423, Jan.
2015.
[39] Z. Briqech, A-R. Sebak, and T. A. Denidni, “Low-cost wideband mmWave phased array using the piezoelectric transducer
for 5G applications,” IEEE Trans. Ant. Propagat., vol. 65, no. 12, pp. 6403–6412, Dec. 2017.
[40] V. Raghavan, A. Partyka, S. Subramanian, A. Sampath, O. H. Koymen, K. Ravid, J. Cezanne, K. K. Mukkavilli, and J. Li,
“Millimeter wave MIMO prototype: Measurements and experimental results,” IEEE Commun. Magaz., vol. 56, no. 1, pp.
202–209, Jan. 2018.
[41] 3GPP TR 38.912 V14.1.0 (2017-06), “Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; Study on New Radio (NR)
access technology (Rel. 14),” June 2017.
[42] S. S. Christensen, R. Agarwal, E. de Carvalho, and J. M. Cioffi, “Weighted sum-rate maximization using weighted MMSE
for MIMO-BC beamforming design,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 7, no. 12-1, pp. 4792–4799, Dec. 2008.
[43] M. Kobayashi and G. Caire, “An iterative water-filling algorithm for maximum weighted sum-rate of Gaussian MIMO-BC,”
IEEE Journ. Sel. Areas in Commun., vol. 24, no. 8, pp. 1640–1646, Aug. 2006.
[44] V. Raghavan, S. V. Hanly, and V. V. Veeravalli, “Statistical beamforming on the Grassmann manifold for the two-user
broadcast channel,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 59, no. 10, pp. 6464–6489, Oct. 2013.
[45] M. Sadek, A. Tarighat, and A. H. Sayed, “A leakage-based precoding scheme for downlink multi-user MIMO channels,”
IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 6, no. 5, pp. 1711–1721, May 2007.
[46] A. A. M. Saleh and R. Valenzuela, “A statistical model for indoor multipath propagation,” IEEE Journ. Selected Areas in
Commun., vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 128–137, Feb. 1987.
[47] D. J. Love, R. W. Heath, Jr., V. K. N. Lau, D. Gesbert, B. D. Rao, and M. Andrews, “An overview of limited feedback
in wireless communication systems,” IEEE Journ. Selected Areas in Commun., vol. 26, no. 8, pp. 1341–1365, Oct. 2008.
[48] V. Raghavan, J. J. Choi, and D. J. Love, “Design guidelines for limited feedback in the spatially correlated broadcast
channel,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 63, no. 7, pp. 2524–2540, July 2015.

32

[49] J. Song, J. J. Choi, and D. J. Love, “Common codebook millimeter wave beam design: Designing beams for both sounding
and communication with uniform planar arrays,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 65, no. 4, pp. 1859–1872, Apr. 2017.
[50] S. Noh, M. D. Zoltowski, and D. J. Love, “Multi-resolution codebook and adaptive beamforming sequence design for
millimeter wave beam alignment,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 16, no. 9, pp. 5689–5701, Sept. 2017.
[51] A. M. Sayeed, “Deconstructing multi-antenna fading channels,” IEEE Trans. Sig. Proc., vol. 50, no. 10, pp. 2563–2579,
Oct. 2002.
[52] A. M. Tulino, A. Lozano, and S. Verdú, “Impact of antenna correlation on the capacity of multiantenna channels,” IEEE
Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 51, no. 7, pp. 2491–2509, July 2005.

