Cell-Free Massive MIMO with Limited Backhaul
Manijeh Bashar∗, Kanapathippillai Cumanan∗, Alister G. Burr∗ , Hien Quoc Ngo† , and Mérouane Debbah‡

∗ Department of Electronic Engineering, University of York, Heslington, York, UK,
of Electronics, Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast, UK,
‡ Large Networks and Systems Group, CentraleSupélec, Université Paris-Saclay, France
Email: {mb1465, kanapathippillai.cumanan, alister.burr}@york.ac.uk, hien.ngo@qub.ac.uk, m.debbah@centralesupelec.fr

arXiv:1801.10190v1 [] 30 Jan 2018

† School

Abstract—We consider a cell-free Massive multiple-input
multiple-output (MIMO) system and investigate the system
performance for the case when the quantized version of the
estimated channel and the quantized received signal are available
at the central processing unit (CPU), and the case when only the
quantized version of the combined signal with maximum ratio
combining (MRC) detector is available at the CPU. Next, we
study the max-min optimization problem, where the minimum
user uplink rate is maximized with backhaul capacity constraints.
To deal with the max-min non-convex problem, we propose to
decompose the original problem into two sub-problems. Based on
these sub-problems, we develop an iterative scheme which solves
the original max-min user uplink rate. Moreover, we present a
user assignment algorithm to further improve the performance
of cell-free Massive MIMO with limited backhaul links.
aaKeywords: Cell-free Massive MIMO, geometric programming,
generalized eigenvalue problem, limited backhaul.

I. I NTRODUCTION
Massive multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) is a potential technique to achieve high data rate [1]–[6]. Cell-free
Massive MIMO is a promising technology for 5th Generation
(5G) systems, where large number of distributed access points
(APs) serve much smaller number of distributed users [7].
The effect of the limited capacity backhaul links from the
APs to a central processing unit (CPU) has not however been
addressed in the literature. The assumption of infinite backhaul
in [3], [4], [7], [8] is not realistic in practice. The backhaul
load is the main challenge in any distributed antenna systems
[9]. First, we consider the case where all APs send back the
quantized version of the minimum mean square error (MMSE)
estimate of the channel from each user and the quantized
version of the received signal to the CPU. We next study
the case when each AP multiplies the received signal by
the conjugate of the estimated channel from each user, and
sends back a quantized version of this weighted signal to the
CPU. We derive the total number of bits for both cases and
show that given the same backhaul capacity for both cases,
the relative performance of the aforementioned cases depends
on the number of antennas at each AP, the total number of
APs and the channel coherence time. We next investigate an
uplink max-min signal-to-interference plus noise ratio (SINR)
problem with limited backhaul links, where to handle the
non-convexity of the max-min SINR problem, we propose to
decouple the original problem into two sub-problems, namely,
The work of K. Cumanan and A. G. Burr was supported by H2020- MSCARISE-2015 under grant number 690750. In addition, the work on which this
paper is based was carried out in collaboration with COST Action CA15104
(IRACON).

receiver filter coefficient design, and power allocation. We next
show that the receiver filter coefficient design problem may be
solved through a generalized eigenvalue problem [10] whereas
the user power allocation problem is solved through a standard
geometric programming (GP) [11], and present an iterative
algorithm to alternately solve the max-min SINR problem.
Finally an efficient user assignment algorithm is presented,
which results in significant performance improvement.
II. SYSTEM MODEL
We consider uplink transmission in a cell-free Massive
MIMO system with M APs and K single-antenna users randomly distributed in a large area. Moreover, we assume each
AP has N antennas. The channel coefficient vector between
the kth √user and the mth AP, gmk ∈ CN ×1 , is modeled as
gmk = βmk hmk , where βmk denotes the large-scale fading
and hmk ∼ CN (0, IN ) represents the small-scale fading [7].
All pilot sequences transmitted by the K users in the channel
estimation phase are collected in a matrix Φ ∈ Cτ ×K , where
τ is the length of the pilot sequence for each user and the
kth column, φ k , represents the pilot sequence used for the kth
user. After performing a de-spreading operation, the MMSE
estimate of the channel coefficient between the kth user and
the mth AP is given by [7]


K
X
√
√

ĝmk = cmk  τ pp gmk + τ pp
gmk′ φ H
k φ k′ + Wp,mφ k ,(1)
k′ 6=k

where Wp,m denotes the noise sequence at the mth antenna
whose elements are i.i.d. CN (0, 1), pp represents the normalized signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of each pilot sequence
(which we define
√ in Section VI), and cmk is given by
τp β
. The estimated channels in
cmk = τ p PK β p ′mk
2
φH
|φ
p
k φ k′ | +1
k′ =1 mk
(1) are used by the APs to design the receiver coefficients
and determine power allocations. The transmitted signal from
√
the kth user is represented by xk =
qk sk , where sk
(E{|sk |2 } = 1) and qk denotes the transmitted symbol and
the transmit power from the kth user, respectively. The N × 1
received signal at the mth AP from all users is given by
K

ym =

√ X
√
ρ
gmk qk sk + nm ,

(2)

k=1

where each element of nm ∈ CN ×1 , nn,m ∼ CN (0, 1) is the
noise at the mth AP.

Case 1. Quantized Estimate of the Channel and Quantized
Signal Available at the CPU: The mth AP quantizes the
terms ĝmk , ∀k, and ym , and forwards the quantized CSI and
the quantized signals in each symbol duration to the CPU.
The quantized signal can be obtained as:
[ỹm ]n = [ym ]n + [eym ]n = [ζ m ]n + j[ν m ]n , ∀m, n,

(3)

where [x]n represents the nth element of vector x, [eym ]n
refers to the quantization error, and [ζ m ]n and [ν m ]n are the
real and imaginary parts of [ym ]n , respectively. The analogto-digital converter (ADC) quantizes the real and imaginary
parts of [ym ]n with α bits each, which introduces quantization
errors [eym ]n to the received signals [12]. In addition, the ADC
quantizes the MMSE estimate of CSI as:
[g̃mk ]n = [ĝmk ]n +[eĝmk ]n = [̺mk ]n + j[κmk ]n , ∀k, n,

(4)

where [̺mk ]n and [κmk ]n denote the real and imaginary parts
of [g̃mk ]n , respectively. The received signal for the kth user
after using the low complexity maximum ratio combining
(MRC) detector at the CPU is given by
rk =

M
X

g̃H
mk ỹm

=

√

ρE

(

|

M
X

√
ĝH
mk gmk qk

m=1

)

sk +

M
X

ĝH
mk nm

m=1

{z

m=1

+

}

M
K
X
√
√ X H
ĝmk gmk′ qk′ sk′
ρ

k′ 6=k

Note that the same equality holds for the term Im ([ym ]n ).
Moreover, the same approach is used to find the relation between R(Re([ĝmk ]n )) and the standard deviation of
Re([ĝmk ]n ), σRe([ĝmk ]n ) . The proper values of wy and wg are
numerically obtained. Using (9) and (8), the power of the
quantization errors is given by

m=1

{z

BUk

m=1

|

{z

}

IUIkk′

K
M
M
X
X
√ X ĝ H
√
+
ρ
(emk ) gmk′ qk′ sk′ +
(eĝmk )H nm
k′ =1

+

M
X

m=1

|

m=1

{z

TQEkk′

y
ĝH
mk em +

M
X

(eĝmk )H eym ,

}

|

{z

TQEgk

{z

TQEy
k

}

|

{z

TQEgy
k

2
y
σ[e
=
m]
n

(5)

}

where DSk and BUk denote the desired signal (DS) and
beamforming uncertainty (BU) for the kth user, respectively,
and IUIk represents the inter-user-interference (IUI) caused by
the k ′ th user. In addition, TNk accounts for the total noise (TN)
y
following the MRC detection, and finally the terms TQEk ,
g
gy
TQEk , TQEk and TQEkk′ refere to the total quantization error
(TQE) at the kth user due to the quantization errors at the
channel and signal.
Proposition 1. The terms DSk , BUk , IUIkk′ , TQNkk′ , TQNgk ,
TQNyk , TQNgy
k are mutually uncorrelated.

2
ωy2 σRe{[y

m ]n }

2
ωy2 σIm{[y

m ]n}

=

3Q2m

3Q2m

.

(10)

!

(11)

Next, the term σy2m is obtained as

}

m=1

m=1

|

Proof: The distribution of the errors, eym and eĝmk , are
uniform over the range of the quantization errors [12] and
the elements of [eym ]n and [eĝmk ]n are i.i.d. random variables
with variance E{|[eym ]n |2 } and E{|[eĝmk ]n |2 }, respectively. To
calculate E{|[eym ]n |2 }, we use the following property of the
quantization error [12]
 2
o
n
∆
2
2
2
y
y
, (8)
=
2
=
2σ
E |[eym ]n | = 2σRe([e
Im([em ]n )
m ]n )
12

R(Re ([ym ]n ))=wyσRe([ym ]n −wy(−σRe([ym ]n)=2wy σRe([ym ]n.(9)

}
{z
}
|
TNk
DSk
)!
(
M
M
X
√ X H
√
√
+ ρ
sk
ĝmkgmk qk −E
ĝH
mk gmk qk
|

Theorem 1. Having the quantized CSI and the quantized
signal at the CPU and employing MRC detection at the CPU,
the SINR of the kth user is given by (7) (defined at the top of
the next page).

2
2
are the variance of real and
and σIm([e
where σRe([e
y
y
m ]n )
m ]n )
imaginary parts of the quantization error, and ∆ is given by
R(Re([ym ]n ))
R(Im([ym ]n ))
∆ =
=
, where Qm refers to the
Qm
Qm
quantization level, R is the operator range and R (Re([ym ]n ))
is obtained as [12]

M 
H
X
ĝmk + eĝmk
=
(ym + eym )
m=1

m=1

The proof uses the fact that the quantization error is signal
independent, uniformly distributed white noise [12], and is
omitted here due to space limitations.

Using Proposition 1 and the same scheme in [7], the SINR of
the received signal in (5) can be defined by considering the
worst-case of the uncorrelated Gaussian noise as (6) (defined
at the top of the next page).

σy2m


= E yH
m ym = N

ρ

K
X

qk′ βmk′ + 1 .

k′ =1

P
2
= ρ K
Therefore, we have σ[y
k′ =1 qk′ βmk′ + 1, which
m ]n
enables us to find the variance of the real and imaginary
2
2
parts of [ym ]n as follows: σRe{[y
]n } = σIm{[y ]n } =
ρ

PK

m

qk′ βmk′ +1
.
2

m

Finally, using the same method as [eym ]n for
ĝ
2
= E{[ĝH
[em ]n , and the fact that σ[ĝ
mk ĝmk ]n } = γmk , the
mk ]n
variance of the real and imaginary parts of [ĝmk ]n is obtained
2
2
as follows: σRe{[ĝ
= σIm{[ĝ
= γmk
2 . Hence, the power
m ]n }
m ]n }
of quantization errors can be obtained as
n
o
wy2
PK
2
(ρ k′ =1 qk′ βmk′ + 1), (12a)
E |[eym ]n | =
3Q2m
o
n
wg2
2
E |[egmk ]n | =
γmk .
(12b)
3Q2m
k′ =1

1
SINRCase
=
k

|DSk |2
o
n
o
n
o P
n
o.(6)
o
n
o P
n
n
2
2
2
2
K
K
2
2
+ k′ =1 E |TQEkk′|
E |BUk | + k′ 6=k E |IUIkk′| +E TQEyk +E TQEgk +E TQEgy
k
N 2 qk

1
SINRCase
=
k

N

PK
2

k′ 6=k qk′

N2

PK

k′ 6=k qk′

m=1 γmk

2

.(7)
2
P
P
P
N
βmk′
M
K
M
H
φk φ k′ |2 +N m=1 (Ctot,m +1) γmk k′ =1 qk′βmk′ +
(Ctot,m +1) γmk
|φ
m=1 γmk
βmk
ρ m=1


PM

N 2 qk

2
SINRCase
=
k

P
M

P
M

m=1 γmk

2

.(15)
2
 2
 2
P

P
P
βmk′ H
N
ω
ω
(2β
−γ
)
M
M
K
mk
mk
z
z
|φ k φ k′ |2+N m=1
+γmk k′ =1 qk′βmk′ +
2 +1 γmk
m=1 γmk
3Q2m
βmk
ρ m=1 3Qm


PM

Using (12a) and (12b) and the fact that quantization error
is indepnedent with the input of the quantizer, after some
mathematical manipulations (the proof is omitted here due to
space limitations), we have:

A. Performance of Different Cases of Uplink Transmission

Let us assume the length of frame (which represents the
length of the uplink data) is τf = τc − τ, where τc denotes
the number of samples for each coherence interval and τ
K
n
o represents the length of pilot sequence. Defining the number
o n
o n
o X
n
2
2
2
2
E TQEyk +E TQEgk +E TQEgy
+
E |TQEkk′|
of the quantization levels as Qm,i = 2αi , for i = 1, 2,
k
′
k =1
corresponding to Cases 1 and 2, for Case 1, the required
M
M
K
X
X
X
number of bits for each AP during each coherence interval
=N
Ctot,m γmk
Ctot,m γmk ,
(13) is 2α × (N K + N τ ) whereas Case 2 requires 2α × (Kτ )
qk′βmk′ + N
1
f
2
f
m=1
m=1
k′ =1
bits for each AP during each coherence interval. Hence, the
total backhaul capacity required between the mth AP and the
ω2
ωy2 ωg2
ω2
2
where Ctot,m = 3Qy2 + 3Qg2 + 9Q
4 . The terms |DSk | ,
CPU for all schemes is defined as
m
m
o
o
nm
n
E |BUk |2 , and E |IUIkk′|2 are obtained as the similar

2 (N K + N τf ) log2 Qm,1


method in [7], which completes the proof of Theorem 1. 
, Case 1,
Cm =

Case 2. Quantized Weighted Signal Available at the
CPU: The mth AP quantizes the terms zm,k = ĝH
mk ym , ∀k,
and forwards the quantized signals in each symbol duration
to the CPU as zmk = ĝH
mk ym = amk + jbmk , ∀k, where amk
and bmk represent the real and imaginary parts of zmk . An
ADC quantizes the real and imaginary parts of zm,k with α
bits each, which introduces quantization errors to the received
signals [12]. Let us consider the term ezmk as the quantization
error of the mth AP. Hence, the relation between zmk and its
quantized version, z̃mk , can be written as z̃mk = zmk + ezmk .
The aggregated received signal at the CPU can be written as


M
X
z 
ĝH
.
(14)
rk =
mkym +emk
|
{z
}
m=1
zmk

Theorem 2. Having the quantized weighted signal at the CPU
and employing MRC detection at the CPU, the achievable
uplink rate of the kth user in the cell-free Massive MIMO
system is given by (15) (defined at the top of this page).
Proof: This can be derived by following the same approach
for uplink transmission in Theorem 3.





Tc
2 (Kτf ) log2 Qm,2
,
Tc

(16)

Case 2,

where Tc (in sec.) refers to coherence time. In the following,
we present a comparison between three cases of uplink transmission. To make a fair comparison between Case 1 and Case
2, we use the same total number of backhaul bits for both
cases, that is: 2(N K + N τf ) log2 Qm,1 = 2(Kτf ) log2 Qm,2 .
In numerical results, we show that for the same backhaul
capacity, the performances of Case 1 and Case 2 depend on the
values of N , K and τf . In this work, we study the max-min
SINR problem for Case 2 of uplink transmission in cell-free
Massive MIMO system.
III. P ERFORMANCE A NALYSIS
In this section, we derive the achievable rate for the considered system model in the previous section by following
a similar approach to that in [7]. In deriving the achievable
rates of each user, it is assumed that the CPU exploits only the
knowledge of channel statistics between the users and APs in
detecting data from the received signal in (17). The aggregated
received signal at the CPU can be written as



M
X


Rk = log2 
1 +



uH
k
uH
k





N

PK
2

k′ 6=k

N

2

qk Γk ΓH
k

H
2
φH
qk′ |φ
k φ k′ | Λkk′ Λkk′ + N



k′ =1

qk′ Υkk′


 
.
N
+ Rk u k
ρ

max

qk ,uk ,Qm

s.t.

min

k=1,··· ,K

RkUP ,

||uk || = 1, ∀k,
p(k)
max ,

0 ≤ qk ≤
∀k,
Cm ≤ Cbh , ∀m,

m=1

m=1

uk
PK

P1 :

z 
umk ĝH
mkym+emk =
|
{z
}
m=1
zmk
)
( M
M
X
X
√
√
H
umk ĝH
= ρE
umk ĝmk gmk qk sk +
mk nm

rk =



{z

(19)

(20a)
(20b)
(20c)
(20d)

}
{z
}
|
(k)
)!
(M
TNk
DSk
where pmax and Cbh refer to the maximum transmit power
M
X
√ X
√
√
H
H
+ ρ
sk available at user k and the capacity of the backhaul link
umk ĝmkgmk qk −E
umk ĝmk gmk qk
between the mth AP and the CPU, respectively. It is obm=1
m=1
|
{z
}
vious
that the achievable user rates monotonically increase
BUk
M
M
K
X
X
with
the
capacity of the backhaul link between the mth AP
√
√ X
H
ρ
umk ĝmk gmk′ qk′ sk′ +
umk ezmk , (17) and the CPU. Hence, the optimal solution is achieved when
+
m=1
m=1
k′ 6=k
Cm = Cbh , ∀m, which leads to fixed values for the number of
|
|
{z
}
{z
}
IUIkk′
TQEk
quantization levels, Qm , ∀m. As a result, the max-min SINR
where by collecting all the coefficients umk , ∀ m, correspond- problem can be re-formulated as follows:
ing to the kth user, we define uk = [u1k , u2k , · · · , uMk ]T and
P2 :
max
min
RkUP ,
(21a)
qk ,uk
k=1,··· ,K
without loss of generality, it is assumed that ||uk || = 1. The
s.t. ||uk || = 1, ∀k, 0 ≤ qk ≤ p(k)
optimal solution of uk , qk , ∀ k for the considered max-min
max , ∀k. (21b)
SINR approach is investigated in Section IV. The correspondProblem P2 is not jointly convex in terms of uk and power
ing SINR of the received signal in (17) can be defined by
allocation qk , ∀k. Therefore, it cannot be directly solved
considering the worst-case of the uncorrelated Gaussian noise
through existing convex optimization software. To tackle this
as follows:
non-convexity issue, we decouple Problem P2 into two subSINRk =
(18) problems: receiver coefficient design (i.e. uk ) and the power
2
allocation problem. The optimal solution for Problem P2 , is
|DSk |
o.
o
n
o
n
n
o P
n
obtained through alternately solving these sub-problems, as
2
2
2
K
2
E |BUk | + k′ 6=k E |IUIkk′| +E |TNk| +E |TQEk|
explained in the following subsections.
|

Based on the SINR definition in (18), the achievable uplink
rate of the kth user is defined in the following theorem.

Theorem 3. Employing MRC weighting at APs, the achievable
uplink rate of the kth user in the Cell-free Massive MIMO
system is given by (19) (defined at the top of this page).
Note that uk = [u1k , u2k , · · · , uMk ]T , and the following
equations
hold: Γk = [γ1k , γ2k , · · · , γMk ]T , Υkk′ =
h
i
ω 2 (2β −γ )
ω 2 (2βM k −γM k)
diag β1k′ ( z 3Q1k2 1k +γ1k ),· · · , βMk′ ( z 3Q
+γMk ) ,
2
1
M
γMk βMk′ T
γ1k β1k′ γ2k β2k′
,
,··· ,
]
and
=
[
Λkk′
β1k
β2k
βMk
h 2
i
2
ω
ω
Rk = diag ( 3Qz2 + 1)γ1k , · · · , ( 3Qz2 + 1)γMk .
1

M

Proof: Please refer to Appendix A.

IV. P ROPOSED M AX -M IN SINR S CHEME

A. Receiver Filter Coefficient Design

In this subsection, the problem of designing the receiver
coefficient is considered. We solve the max-min SINR problem
for a given set of allocated powers at all users, qk , ∀k, and
fixed values for the number of quantization levels, Qm , ∀m.
These coefficients (i.e., uk , ∀ k) are obtained by interdependently maximizing the uplink SINR of each user. Therefore,
the optimal receiver filter coefficients can be determined by
solving the following optimization problem:
P3 : max
uk


H
N 2 uH
k qk Γk Γk uk


PK
PK
N
H
H
2
′ Υkk′ +
′|φ
φ
′ |2Λkk′Λ
uH
+N
q
N
q
φ
uk
R
′
′
′
k
k
k
k
kk
k
k =1
k 6=k
ρ
 k
(22a)
s.t. ||uk || = 1, ∀k.
(22b)

In this section, we formulate the max-min SINR problem
in cell-free massive MIMO, where the minimum uplink rates
of all users is maximized while satisfying the transmit power
constraint at each user and the backhaul capacity constraint as
follows:

Problem P3 is a generalized eigenvalue problem [13], where
the optimal solutions can be obtained by determining the
generalized eigenvalue [10] of
pair Ak =
PKthe matrix
H
2
H
2
′ | Λkk′Λ
′|φ
φ
φ
N 2 qk Γk ΓH
and
B
=
N
q
′
k
k
k
kk′ +
k
k 6=k
PK k
N
N k′ =1 qk′ Υkk′ + ρ Rk corresponding to the maximum generalized eigenvalue.

(0) (0)
(0)
= [q1 , q2 , · · · , qK ], i = 1
UP,(i+1)
UP,(i)
3-5 until SINRk
− SINRk

(0)

1. Initialize q
2. Repeat steps
≤ ǫ, ∀k
3. i = i + 1
4. Set q(i) = q(i−1) and determine the optimal receiver
(i)
(i)
(i)
coefficients U(i) = [u1 , u2 , · · · , uK ] through solving the
generalized eigenvalue Problem P3 in (22)
5. Compute q(i+1) through solving Problem P5 in (24)

B. Power Allocation

min

k=1,··· ,K

s.t.

SINRUP
k ,

(23a)

0 ≤ qk ≤ p(k)
max .

(23b)

Without loss of generality, Problem P3 can be rewritten by
introducing a new slack variable as
P5 : max t,

(24a)

t,qk

s.t.

2.8
2.6

Perfect backhaul

2.4
2.2

Limited backhaul

2

0 ≤ qk ≤

(k)
pmax
,

∀k,

SINRUP
k

≥ t, ∀k.

1.8

Therefore, Problem P5 is efficiently solved through existing convex optimization software. Based on these two
sub-problems, an iterative algorithm has been developed as
summarized in Algorithm 1. Note that ǫ in Step 2 of Algorithm 1 refers to a small predetermined value. In addition,
numerical results will be presented in Section VI to validate
the convergence of the proposed algorithm.
V. U SER A SSIGNMENT
The total backhaul capacity required between the mth AP
and the CPU increases linearly with the total number of users
served by the mth AP, which motivates the need to pick a
proper set of active users for each AP. Using (16), we have
log2 Qm × Km ≤

Cbh Ts τc
,
2Kτf

8

10

(25)

where Km denotes the size of the set of active users for
the mth AP. From (25), it can be seen that decreasing the
size of the set of active users allows for a larger number of
quantization levels. Motivated by this fact, and to exploit the
capacity of backhaul links more efficient, we investigate all
possible combinations of log2 Qm and Km . First, for a fixed
value of log2 Qm , we find an upper bound on the size of the set
of active users for each AP. In the next step, we propose for all
APs that the users are sorted according to βmk , ∀k, and find
the Km users which have the highest values of βmk among all
users. If a user is not selected by any AP, we propose to find

12

Number of quantization bits ( )

14

16

1

Random pilot
assignment
0.8 =10
0.6

Orthogonal
pilots

0.4

Proposed Scheme
(Algorithm 1)
umk=1 and solve Problem P4

0.2

(24b)

Proposition 2. Problem P5 can be formulated into a GP.

N=2, M=140
N=4, M=70
N=10, M=28

Figure 1. Average per-user uplink rate versus the number of quantization
bits, α, with limited and perfect backhaul link.

Cumulative distribution

qk

3

6

In this subsection, we solve the power allocation problem
for a given set of fixed receiver filter coefficients, uk , ∀ k,
and fixed values of quantization levels, Qm , ∀m. The optimal
transmit power can be determined by solving the following
max-min problem:
P4 : max

Average per-user uplink rate (bits/s/Hz)

Algorithm 1 Proposed algorithm to solve Problem P2

0
0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

Min-user uplink rate (bits/s/Hz)
Figure 2. The cumulative distribution of the per-user uplink rate, for M =
100, N = 2, K = 40, α = 5 and D = 1 km.

the AP which has the best link to this user. Then, we add the
user to the set of active users for this user and drop the user
which has the lowest βmk , ∀k, among the set of active users
for that AP which has links to other APs as well. We next
solve the original max-min SINR problem with γ̃mk ← γmk .
VI. N UMERICAL R ESULTS AND D ISCUSSION
A cell-free Massive MIMO system with M APs and K
single antenna users is considered in a D × D simulation
area, where both APs and users are uniformly distributed at
random. In the simulation, an uncorrelated shadowing model
and a three-slope model for the path loss similar to [7] are
considered. Moreover, for the noise power, we use similar
parameters as in [7]. It is assumed that that p̄p and ρ̄ denote the
power of the pilot sequence and the uplink data, respectively,
p̄
where pp = pnp and ρ = pρ̄n . In simulations, we set p̄p = 200
mW and ρ̄ = 200 mW. In addition, simulation results show
ωz = 15 is a proper value. Unless otherwise indicated, we set
ωz = 15.
1) Effect of the Capacity of Backhaul Links: In Fig. 1, a
cell-free Massive MIMO system is considered with total number of service antennas M N = 280, i.e. (N = 2, M = 140),
(N = 4, M = 70) and (N = 10, M = 28), K = 40,

Min-user uplink rate (bits/s/Hz)

2

1.5

Orthogonal pilots, D=1
Random pilot assignment, =30, D=1
Random pilot assignment, =30, D=2

1

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Km

Average per-user uplink rate (bits/s/Hz)

Figure 3. Average per-user uplink rate versus the total number of active users
for each AP with M = 100, N = 2, K = 40 and log2 Qm × Km = 200.
5
4

Case 2, K=20
Case 1, K=20
Case 1, K=40
Case 2, K=40

3
2
1
0
10

11

12

13

14

15

16

Figure 4. The average per-user uplink rate for cases 1 and 2, with (N = 4,
K = 20, τ = 20, , α1 = 9, α2 = 2, ωg = 3, ωy = 80, ωz = 3), and
(N = 20, K = 40, τ = 40, α1 = 8, α2 = 5, ωg = 3.5, ωy = 70, ωz = 3)
with D = 1 km and τc = 200.

orthogonal pilot sequences and D = 1 km. As Fig. 1 shows,
for the case of (N = 2, M = 140) to achieve the performance
of perfect backhaul links, we need to set α ≥ 14, for the cases
of (N = 4, M = 70) and (N = 10, M = 28), we need to set
α ≥ 13 and α ≥ 12, respectively.
2) Performance of the Proposed User Max-Min SINR Algorithm: Fig. 2 presents the cumulative distribution of the
achievable uplink rates for the proposed Algorithm 1 and the
scheme without considering the coefficients uk s similar to [7]
(we set umk = 1, ∀m, k and solve Problem P4 ) with random
pilot assignment with length τ = 20 and orthogonal pilot
sequences. As seen in Fig. 2, the median of the cumulative
distribution function (CDF) of the minimum uplink rate of the
users is increased by 2.3 times and 2.05 times respectively
with random and orthogonal pilots compared to the scheme in
[7]. Moreover, Fig. 2 demonstrates that the rate of the proposed
max-min SINR approach is more concentrated around the
median value.
3) Performance of the Proposed User Assignment Scheme:
In Fig. 3, the average per-user uplink rate is presented with
M = 100, N = 2, K = 40, orthogonal pilot sequences and
random pilot assignment and with D = 1 km and D = 2
km versus the total number of active users per AP. Here, we

used inequality (25) and set log2 Qm × Km = 200 for all
opt
curves in Fig. 3. The optimum value of Km , (Km ), depends
on the system parameters and as Fig. 3 shows for the case of
M = 100, N = 2, K = 40, the optimum value is achieved by
opt
Km
= 20. As a result, the proposed user assignment scheme
can improve the performance of cell-free Massive MIMO
systems with limited backhaul capacity. For instance, using
the proposed user assignment scheme for the case of τ = 30
and D = 2 in Fig. 3, one can achieve min-user uplink rate of
opt
1.55 bits/s/Hz by setting Km = 20, instead of quantizing the
signals of all K = 40 users and achieving min-user uplink rate
of 1.37 bits/s/Hz, which indicates 15% improvement in the
performance of cell-free Massive MIMO systems with limited
backhaul capacity.
4) Performance of Different Cases of Uplink Transmission:
Fig. 4 presents the average min-user uplink rate, where the
per-user uplink rate is obtained by solving Problem P4 , given
by (23) for Cases 1 and 2. In addition, for K = 20, we set
α1 = 9 and α2 = 2, for Case 1 and Case 2, respectively. The
values of α1 = 9 and α2 = 2 correspond to a total number of
14,400 bits for each AP during each coherence time (or frame).
In addition, similar to [12] we use a uniform quantzier with
fixed stepsize. Simulation results show (ωg = 3, ωy = 80,
ωz = 3) are the optimal values for the case of N = 4 and
K = 20, and (ωg = 3.5, ωy = 70, ωz = 3) are the optimal
values for the case of N = 20 and K = 40. As Fig 4 shows
the performance of Case 2 is better than Case 1 for K = 20.
Next, the performance of the cell-free Massive MIMO system
is evaluated for a system with K = 40 in which each AP is
equipped with N = 20 antennas. Fig. 4 shows the average
rate of the cell-free Massive MIMO system, where for Case
1 and Case 2, we set α1 = 3 and α2 = 8, respectively which
leads to a total number of 64,000 backhaul bits per AP per
frame. Fig. 4 shows that the performances of Case 1 and Case
2 depend on the values of N , K and τf . As in case 1, the CPU
knows the quantized channel estimates, other signal processing
techniques (e.g. zero-forcing processing) can be implemented
to improve the system performance and can be considered in
future work.
VII. C ONCLUSIONS
We have studied the uplink max-min SINR problem in cellfree Massive MIMO systems with the realistic assumption
of limited capacity backhaul links, and have proposed an
optimal solution to maximize the minimum uplink user rate.
The numerical results confirmed that the proposed max-min
SINR algorithm can increase the median of the CDF of
the minimum uplink rate of the users by more than two
times, compared to existing algorithms. We finally showed
that further improvement (15%) in minimum rate of the users
is achieved by the proposed user assignment algorithm.
A PPENDIX A: P ROOF OF T HEOREM 3
The desired signal for the user k is given by
(M
)
M
X
X
√
√
√
H
umk ĝmk gmk qk = N ρqk
umkγmk .(26)
DSk = ρE
m=1

m=1

2

The term E{|BUk | } can be obtained as
n

E |BUk |

2

o

(

= ρE

M
X

√
umk ĝH
mk gmk qk

(27)

m=1

M
nX
√ o
−ρE
umk ĝH
mk gmk qk
m=1

2)

= ρN

M
X

m=1

qk u2mk γmk βmk ,

m=1

where the last equality comes from the analysis in [7], and us√
2
ing γmk = τ pp βmk cmk . The term E{|IUIkk′ | } is obtained
as


2
M
 X

cmk umk gH
E{|IUIkk′ |2 } = ρ qk′ E
mk′ w̃mk


m=1
|
{z
}
A


2
K
M

 X
H
X
, (28)
gmk′
gmiφ H
+ρτ pp E qk′
cmk umk
k φi


m=1
i=1
{z
}
|
B

where the third equality in (28) is due to the fact that for two
independent random variables X and Y and E{X} = 0, we
2
2
2
have E{|X + Y | } = E{|X| } + E{|Y | } [7]. Since w̃mk =
H
φ k Wp,m is independent from the term gmk′ similar to [7,
Appendix A],
PMthe term A in (28) immediately is given by
A = N qk′ m=1 c2mk u2mk βmk′ . The term B in (28) can be
obtained as


2
M
 X

(29)
B = τ pp qk′ E
cmk umk ||gmk′ ||2φ H
φ
′
k k


m=1
{z
}
|
C


2

M
K
 X

X
H
+ τ pp qk′ E
.
gmk′
gmiφ H
cmk umk
k φi


 m=1

i6=k′
{z
}
|
D

The first term in (29) is given by
C = N τ pp qk′ φ H
k φ k′

2

M
X

c2mk u2mk βmk′

m=1
2
φH
k φ k′

2

+ N qk′

M
X

βmk′
umk γmk
βmk
m=1

!2

,

(30)

where the last equality is derived based on the fact γmk =
√
τ pp βmk cmk . The second term in (29) can be obtained as
M

M

m=1
M
X

m=1

X
X
√
D = N τ pp qk′
u2mk cmk βmk′ βmk −N qk′
u2mk c2mk βmk′
− N τ pp qk′

2
H
u2mk c2mk βmk
′ φ k φ k′

m=1

2

.

Finally by substituting (30) and (31) into (29), and substituting
(29) into (28), we obtain
!
M
X
2
2
(32)
umk βmk′ γmk
E{|IUIkk′ | } = N ρqk′

(31)

2

+ N ρqk′

2
φH
k φ k′

M
X

βmk′
umk γmk
βmk
m=1

!2

.

The total noise for the user k is given by


2
M
M
X

o
n
X
2
umk ĝH
=N
u2mk γmk , (33)
E |TNk| = E
mk nm


m=1

m=1

where the last equality is due to the fact that the terms ĝmk
and nm are uncorrelated. The power of quantization error for
the kth user is obtained as
"
#
M
K
X

N ωz2 X 2
2
E |TQEk| =
umk (2βmk −γmk)ρ
qk′βmk′ +γmk ,(34)
3Q2m m=1
′
k =1

where the proof uses a similar way to determine the power
of quantziation error in Section II and is omitted here due to
space limitations. Finally, SINR of the kth user is obtained by
(19), which completes the proof of Theorem 3.

R EFERENCES
[1] A. Zappone, L. Sanguinetti, G. Bacci, E. A. Jorswieck, and M. Debbah,
“Energy-efficient power control: a look at 5G wireless technologies,”
IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 64, no. 7, pp. 1668–1683, Apr. 2016.
[2] E. Björnson, E. A. Jorswieck, M. Debbah, and B. Ottersten, “Multiobjective signal processing optimization: the way to balance conflicting
metrics in 5G systems,” IEEE Signal Process. Mag., vol. 31, no. 6, pp.
14–23, Oct. 2014.
[3] A. G. Burr, M. Bashar, and D. Maryopi, “Cooperative access networks:
Optimum fronthaul quantization in distributed Massive MIMO and cloud
RAN,” in Proc. IEEE VTC, Jun. 2018, pp. 1–5.
[4] M. Bashar, K. Cumanan, A. G. Burr, , M. Debbah, and H. Q. Ngo,
“Enhanced max-min SINR for uplink cell-free Massive MIMO systems,”
in Proc. IEEE ICC, May 2018, pp. 1–6.
[5] M. Bashar, A. G. Burr, K. Haneda, and K. Cumanan, “Robust user
scheduling with COST 2100 channel model for Massive MIMO networks,” Accepted to publish in IET microwave antenna and propagation,
Feb. 2018.
[6] Y. Lejosne, M. Bashar, D. Slock, and Y. Yuan-Wu, “From MU Massive
MISO to pathwise MU Massive MIMO,” in Proc. IEEE SPAWC, Jun.
2014, pp. 16–20.
[7] H. Q. Ngo, A. Ashikhmin, H. Yang, E. G. Larsson, and T. L. Marzetta,
“Cell-free Massive MIMO versus small cells,” IEEE Trans. Wireless
Commun., vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 1834–1850, Mar. 2017.
[8] M. Bashar, K. Cumanan, A. G. Burr, , H. Q. Ngo, and M. Debbah, “Maxmin SINR of cell-free Massive MIMO uplink with optimal uniform
quantization,” Submitted to IEEE Trans. Commun.
[9] Z. Gao, L. Dai, D. Mi, Z. Wang, M. A. Imran, and M. Z. Shakir,
“MmWave Massive-MIMO-based wireless backhaul for the 5G ultradense network,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 22, no. 5, pp.
13–21, Oct. 2015.
[10] G. Golub and C. V. Loan, Matrix Computations, 2nd ed. Baltimore,
MD: The Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1996.
[11] S. P. Boyd, S. J. Kim, A. Hassibi, and L. Vandenbarghe, “A tutorial on
geometric programming,” Optim. Eng., vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 67–128, 2007.
[12] A. V. Oppenheim, R. W. Schafer, and J. R. Buck, Discrete-time signal
processing. Prentice-hall Englewood Cliffs, 1989.
[13] K. Cumanan, L. Musavian, S. Lambotharan, and A. B. Gershman,
“SINR balancing technique for downlink beamforming in cognitive radio
networks,” IEEE Signal Process. Lett., vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 133–136, Feb.
2010.

