1

Fog Massive MIMO: A User-Centric Seamless
Hot-Spot Architecture
Ozgun Y. Bursalioglu† , Giuseppe Caire? , Ratheesh K. Mungara? ,

arXiv:1803.07614v1 [] 20 Mar 2018

Haralabos C. Papadopoulos† , Chenwei Wang†

Abstract
The decoupling of data and control planes, as proposed for 5G networks, will enable the efficient
implementation of multitier networks where user equipment (UE) nodes obtain coverage and connectivity
through the top-tier macro-cells, and, at the same time, achieve high-throughput low-latency communication through lower tiers in the hierarchy. This paper considers a new architecture for such lower tiers,
dubbed fog massive MIMO, where the UEs are able to establish high-throughput low-latency data links
in a seamless and opportunistic manner, as they travel through a dense “fog” of high-capacity wireless
infrastructure nodes, referred to as remote radio heads (RRHs). Traditional handover mechanisms in
dense multicell networks inherently give rise to frequent handovers and pilot sequence re-assignments,
incurring, as a result, excessive protocol overhead and significant latency. In the proposed fog massive
MIMO architecture, UEs seamlessly and implicitly associate themselves to the most convenient RRHs
in a completely autonomous manner. Each UE makes use of a unique uplink pilot sequence, and pilot
contamination is mitigated by a novel coded “on-the-fly” pilot contamination control mechanism. We
analyze the spectral efficiency and the outage probability of the proposed architecture via stochastic
geometry, using some recent results on unique coverage in Boolean models, and provide a detailed
comparison with respect to an idealized baseline massive MIMO cellular system, that neglects protocol
overhead and latency due to explicit user-cell association. Our analysis, supported by extensive system
simulation, reveals that there exists a “sweet spot” of the per-pilot user load (number of users per pilot),
such that the proposed system achieves spectral efficiency close to that of an ideal cellular system with
the minimum distance user-base station association and no pilot/handover overhead.
Index Terms
Massive MIMO, pilot contamination, stochastic geometry, Poisson point process, spatial pilot reuse,
spectral efficiency.
†

Docomo

Innovations,

Inc.,

cwang}@docomoinnovations.com).

?

Palo

Alto,

CA

94304,

USA

(Email:

{obursalioglu,

hpapadopoulos,

Communications and Information Theory Group, Technische Universität Berlin,

Berlin 14059, Germany (Email: {caire, mungara}@tu-berlin.de).
March 22, 2018

DRAFT

2

I. I NTRODUCTION
5G technologies are expected to bring about great improvements with respect to a multitude
of metrics, including user and cell throughput, end-to-end latency and massive device connectivity. They are also viewed as essential elements for enabling the much broader gamut of
services envisioned, such as immersive applications (e.g., virtual/augmented/mixed reality) [1],
[2], haptics [3], V2X (vehicle-to-everything) [4], and the Internet of Things [5]. To meet such
ambitious and broad range of goals, operators would have to rely on a combination of additional
resources, which include newly available licensed and unlicensed bands, network densification,
large antenna arrays, and new PHY/network layer technologies. In particular, the wide range of
performance objectives for such a disparate variety of services is not suited to the conventional
“one-size fits all” approach of conventional single-tier cellular networks. For this reason, a key
feature of 5G networks consists of the decoupling of data and control planes [6], in order to enable
multi-tier networks [7]. In such architectures, user equipment (UE) nodes shall maintain coverage
and connectivity through macro-cells operating at conventional frequency bands (1 to 3.5 GHz),
with low propagation pathloss and good indoor penetration. While this tier stays at the top of the
hierarchy and takes care of fundamental functionalities such as mobility management and general
bookkeeping of the users in the system, high-throughput and low-latency data communication
is supported by lower tiers in the hierarchy, formed by smaller and simpler infrastructure nodes
operating at higher frequency bands with smaller range [8]. By means of a large number of
remote radio heads (RRHs), deployed as a second tier, localized network densification can be
used for hot-spot formation, in order to tackle the spatial non-uniformity in data traffic demands,
which is one of the biggest challenges faced by wireless operators.1
Massive MIMO suppresses the small-scale fading effects through channel hardening [10],
resulting in an almost-deterministic wireless channel between the transmitter and receiver, which
in turn simplifies rate and power allocation and yields superior spectral and energy efficiency.
While massive MIMO has been mainly regarded as a technology for large and costly cellular
base stations (BSs), the current technology trend considers higher and higher carrier frequencies
and mass production for dense deployment, with corresponding decreasing size and costs. It is
therefore expected that, in the near future, it will be possible to implement small and inexpensive
1

A recent study revealed that 90% of the data is consumed by 10% of the users within 5% of the area [9].

March 22, 2018

DRAFT

3

RRHs with up to ∼100 antennas, each of which serving on average a relatively small number of
users (e.g., ∼10) on same channel subband. Considering the fact that the main deployment cost
for operators is represented by the number of sites (not number of antennas per site), to make
the most out of BS sites, we focus on RRH with large antenna arrays, unlike single antenna site
work such as [11].
Higher-frequency operation inherently implies shorter range, higher penetration loss, and
shorter coherence time. Higher-frequency tiers would need to be denser. As a result, planned
operation of such tiers becomes excessively costly and inefficient. Indeed, in a conventional
small-cell architecture, the cell size is simply scaled down, while maintaining all functionalities in
each small-cell BS. The performance of dense small-cell systems is therefore severely limited by
several issues resulting from cell-size scale down, e.g., reduced cell isolation, excessive handoffs,
asymmetric forward and reverse links, dynamic interference, and backhaul management [12].
Particularly, in the presence of high mobility (as for V2X applications), frequent handovers
and per-cell pilot sequence re-assignment may incur a large protocol overhead and significant
latency. For example, when a finite number of mutually orthogonal pilot sequences are distributed
among the users and are not re-allocated dynamically, it is unavoidable that the same pilot may be
assigned to several users that may be in spatial proximity at some point in time (due to mobility).
In this case, a dense massive MIMO deployment may incur severe multiuser interference due to
pilot contamination [13].
A. Contributions
This paper considers a new architecture for dense massive MIMO, dubbed fog massive MIMO,
where the UEs are able to establish high-throughput and low-latency data links in a seamless
and opportunistic manner, as they move through a dense “fog” of high-capacity multiantenna
RRHs. Our architecture follows a user-centric approach (see also our preliminary work in
[14], [15]). In particular, fog massive MIMO realizes the advantages of distributed antenna
systems such as cell-free operations and efficient interference management, while preserving the
simplicity of localized (i.e., per-RRH) physical layer processing. This is achieved by exploiting
the channel state information obtained via time-division duplexing (TDD) uplink (UL) downlink
(DL) reciprocity, in conjunction with two mechanisms: (i) On-the-fly pilot contamination control
at the physical layer; (ii) Geographic routing with packet replication at the network layer.
March 22, 2018

DRAFT

4

Routing with packet replication

Routing with packet replication

(a)

(b)

Fig. 1: A fog massive MIMO network serving three UEs. In example (a), the UEs use orthogonal UL pilots,
and receive their requested packet from possibly multiple RRHs (macro-diversity). Example (b) shows three UEs
associated to the same UL pilot. The RRHs in the transmission range intersection regions detect pilot contamination
and discard the corresponding channel estimate.

The proposed on-the-fly pilot contamination control mechanism allows each RRH to decide
autonomously and instantaneously whether a received UL pilot is free from contamination. Only
the packets of the UEs corresponding to uncontaminated pilots are decoded in the UL slot and
subsequently served via multiuser MIMO precoding in the DL slot.
Geographic routing with packet replication allows any user, with high probability, to be in the
proximity of a sufficiently large number of RRHs with data packets ready to send, thus creating
opportunistic macro-diversity opportunities. Hence, it is not really important “from which RRH”
a given UE receives a requested packet, as long as there exists some RRHs nearby that can
provide such packet.
Fig. 1 shows the concept of the proposed fog massive MIMO system. In Fig. 1a, three UEs
making use of orthogonal UL pilots receive their requested DL packet from some surrounding
RRHs, which beamform the packet such that the signal combine coherently, achieving a macrodiversity effect. In Fig. 1b we illustrate the idea of on-the-fly pilot contamination control. In
this case, the three UEs use the same UL pilot. Hence, some RRHs in the intersection of their
transmission range suffer from contamination. These RRHs refrain from using this pilot for
channel estimation and beamforming. Nevertheless, the UEs can still be served by other RRHs.
This altogether motivates the analysis of a fog massive MIMO system that we present here,
with the following novel contributions:
1) We propose a simple coded UL pilot scheme that detects with arbitrarily high reliability (in
March 22, 2018

DRAFT

5

the limit of large antennas) the pilot contamination through a very simple pilot matched filtering
and threshold operation. This allows on-the-fly pilot contamination control on a per-slot basis,
i.e., with minimal latency.
2) We leverage some recent results on unique coverage in Boolean models [16] to provide the
performance analysis of the proposed fog massive MIMO system when the locations of UEs and
RRHs are modeled via two independent Poisson point processes (PPPs). Our analysis yields the
spatially averaged user spectral efficiency (b/s/Hz per user) and area spectral efficiency (b/s/Hz
per unit area) through easy to compute integral approximation, extensively validated by Monte
Carlo system simulation.
3) As a term of comparison, we consider an ideal cellular massive MIMO system with
minimum distance UE-BS association and fractional pilot reuse (each cell uses a randomly
selected subset of pilots from a pool of orthogonal UL pilots). For this system, we derive the
expressions for the spatially averaged user and area spectral efficiencies in integral forms.
As expected, the ideal cellular system yields generally better performance than the (overheadless) fog system, since it associates UEs to BSs according to the minimum distance and assumes
an ideal intra-cell pilot management policy that guarantees mutually orthogonal pilots in each cell.
In our comparison, we do not take into account the cost incurred by pilot allocation/reallocation
at each handover in the presence of mobility, when users migrate from cell to cell. Instead of
trying to quantify such overhead, which would be beyond the scope of this paper, we compare the
ideal baseline cellular system with the fully practical proposed fog massive MIMO system, and
identify the regime where the latter yields comparable performance with respect to its cellular
counterpart.
B. Relation to Cell-Free Massive MIMO
A system consisting of RRHs with local processing, geographic routing with packet replication,
and somehow user-centric operations was recently proposed in [11] under the name of cell-free
massive MIMO. This system makes use of a very large number of single-antenna RRHs. The key
idea of cell-free massive MIMO is that in the DL, maximal-ratio transmission can be obtained by
local combining of the user data packets with the complex conjugate of the channel coefficients at
each RRH, without the need for centralized processing as in cloud radio access network (CRAN)
architectures (e.g., see [17]). As in our scheme, the channel coefficients can be learned at each
March 22, 2018

DRAFT

6

RRH via TDD reciprocity from UL pilots. Despite some similarities, cell-free massive MIMO
and the fog massive MIMO proposed and analyzed in this paper are indeed quite different.
First, in cell-free massive MIMO it is assumed that each RRH has full information on the
channel large-scale gains from itself to all users in the system. Otherwise, for K UEs with Q
orthogonal pilots, with K > Q, it is impossible for a RRH to associate a packet to the channel
estimate produced from a given pilot observation, since the same pilot is associated to multiple
users. As an alternative, cell-free massive MIMO considers K non-orthogonal pilots over Q < K
dimensions, with unique user-pilot association. However, in this case the scheme requires careful
power allocation with possibly iterative re-computation of the non-orthogonal pilot codebook,
where again the large-scale gain information for all user-RRH pairs is needed. This is quite
impractical to be estimated and maintained, especially in a dynamic mobility environment. Then,
cell-free massive MIMO yields competitive spectral efficiency performance for very high RRH
density, typically much higher than the UE density, which is again quite impractical. Finally, and
perhaps more importantly, cell-free massive MIMO is highly asymmetric between UL and DL.
In fact, while in the DL maximal ratio transmission can be achieved by local combining at each
RRH, in the UL each single-antenna RRH must send its received signal to a central processor
to enable multiuser multiantenna joint processing, as done in be concentrated to a single central
processor as in CRAN. Since UL and DL in CRAN have similar complexity and performance (as
rigorously stated by duality theorems [18]), one may wonder what is the significance of making
the DL very simple at the cost of a large performance degradation with respect to CRAN, if a
CRAN is anyway needed for the UL.
Due to the above mentioned critical system assumptions and to the requirement of centralized
processing in the UL, it is very hard to make a fair comparison between our proposed system
and the cell-free massive MIMO system of [11]. For this reason, we have chosen to defer such
comparison to some future work and here we compare with a baseline idealized dense cellular
massive MIMO system (as described before), providing a benchmark for any system based on
per-cell processing.
II. F OG M ASSIVE MIMO S YSTEM
In the considered fog massive MIMO system, a number of multiantenna RRHs and singleantenna UEs are deployed in a given planar region. The system operates in TDD mode, where
March 22, 2018

DRAFT

7

the UL and the DL take place on the same frequency band, but in two adjacent subslot intervals
within a TDD slot. It is assumed that the propagation channel coefficients remain constant over a
TDD slot, and that physical layer UL/DL reciprocity is achieved (e.g., using relative calibration
techniques such as those in [19], [20]). Then, both the UL and the DL channel coefficients can
be learned by the RRHs in each TDD slot from the UL pilot signal sent by the UEs in the UL.
Due to low-latency requirements, the TDD slot interval is fixed to be quite short. Letting T
denote the number of signal dimensions per slot, in an outdoor scenario with the coherence
bandwidth of 200 − 500 kHz and the slot duration of 1 ms, we have T ≈ 200 to 500 signal
dimensions. In this paper, we assume that pilot transmission for channel estimation, user scheduling, and data transmission, must take place on a slot-by-slot basis. This allows the maximum
flexibility to the possible user scheduling algorithms (not considered here), since the scheduled
users in each slot may freely change on a per-slot basis. The analysis of UL data transmission,
triggered by the successful DL decoding, is similar and straightforward with respect to its DL
counterpart. Thus, we consider a simplified slot structure consisting of UL channel estimation
and DL data transmission, without UL data transmission.
The locations of the RRHs {ak } are modeled as a homogeneous PPP Φa ⊂ R2 of density λa ,
implying that on average there are λa RRHs per unit area. The locations of the users {uj } are
modeled as an another independent homogeneous PPP Φu ⊂ R2 of density λu .
A. Coded UL Pilots
Let L < T denote the pilot dimension, i.e., the length of the pilot sequences. Assume that
L = Q + Q0 , where Q and Q0 are integers, and Q0 is even. We consider a particular format of
coded pilots defined as follows. Let SQ = {sq ∈ CQ : q ∈ [Q]} denote2 a set of Q mutually
0 
orthogonal sequences of dimension Q and norm 1. Also, let W(Q0 , Q0 /2) = {w` : ` ∈ [ QQ0 /2 ]}
denote the set of all equal-weight binary codewords of length Q0 with Hamming weight equal
to Q0 /2. Then, the UL pilot codebook is formed by the set of L-dimensional sequences
 0 

p hp
√ T iT
Q
T
Qsq , 2w`
: ∀ (q, `) ∈ [Q] ×
.
C = xq,` = Pu
Q0 /2
2

(1)

where the notation [n] indicates the set of indices {1, . . . , n}.

March 22, 2018

DRAFT

8

It is immediate to verify that kxq,` k2 = Pu L, such that the UL transmit energy per pilot dimension
is effectively equal to Pu . Notice also that the pilot codebook C in (1) is partitioned into Q groups
0 
Cq : q ∈ [Q], where Cq = {xq,` : ` ∈ [ QQ0 /2 ]}, with the property that two pilot sequences in
distinct groups Cq and Cq0 are orthogonal on their first Q components.
Each UE is assigned a pilot sequence in C independently with uniform probability, such that
(q)

(q)

the user PPP can be viewed as Φu = ∪Q
q=1 Φu , where Φu is the process of user locations

utilizing pilots in group Cq , and where λ = λu /Q is the corresponding density, common to all
pilot groups. For simplicity, in the analysis we assume that, at each TDD slot, no two users
assigned to the same group q coincide also in the second pilot field w` . In practice, the size
of the equal-weight code is large enough, such that the probability that two users in the same
group q have also the same w` is very small. For example, setting Q0 = 20 as in our numerical
0 
results yields QQ0 /2 = 184756.
B. UL Channel Estimation and Pilot Contamination Control
Both the data and the pilot symbols are transmitted as time-frequency symbols assuming
p
βk,j hk,j denote the
OFDM modulation. Focusing on a given TDD time slot, let gk,j =
propagation channel vector between the antenna array of the k-th RRH located at ak and the
j-th user located at uj . The coefficient βk,j denotes the large-scale distance dependent channel
gain, the statistics of which will be defined later. The vector hk,j ∈ CM contains the smallscale channel fading coefficients, with IID (independent and identically distributed) components
∼ CN (0, 1), mutually independent across users and RRHs. The received signal at the k-th RRH
over the first Q components of the UL pilot field is given by the M × Q array


X  X
p

gk,j  sTq0 + Zpilot,1
,
Ykpilot,1 = Pu Q

k
q 0 ∈[Q]

(2)

(q 0 )
j:uj ∈Φu

where Zk contains AWGN samples ∼ CN (0, σN2 ) with σN2 representing the noise variance. After
correlating with respect to the pilot sequences [10], the channel estimates corresponding to each
q-th pilot group are given by

bk(q) = √
g



X
1
Ykpilot,1 s∗q = 
gk,j  + zpilot,1
,
k,q
Pu Q
(q)
j:uj ∈Φu

March 22, 2018

q ∈ [Q],

(3)

DRAFT

9
pilot,1
where zk,q
∈ CM has IID components ∼ CN (0, σN2 /(Pu Q)). The pilot contamination is due to

bk(q) contains the superposition of the channels all users in the
the fact that the channel estimate g
bk(q) can be “trusted” only if it
same pilot group q. Qualitatively speaking, the pilot observation g
contains a single strong channel contribution. In contrast, if there are no or more than one strong
contribution, pilot q is considered as “untrusted” and the corresponding channel observation is
bk(q) to calculate the DL precoding vector
discarded. If pilot q is trusted, then the k-th RRH uses g
and send DL precoded data to the associated (single) strong user. Otherwise, it will simply ignore
bk(q) and refrain from transmission of DL data to any user associated to
the channel estimate g
group q.
We next consider how each RRH can distinguish between trusted and untrusted pilot observations in an autonomous decentralized manner. This is obtained by exploiting the equal-weight
code in the second Q0 components of the UL pilot field. The corresponding received signal is
given by



Ykpilot,2 =

X  X
p
2Pu

q 0 ∈[Q]

(q 0 )
j:uj ∈Φu


gk,j w`Tj  + Zpilot,2
,
k

(4)

where, by construction, the indices (q 0 , `j ) are all distinct. Performing maximal ratio combining
bk(q) , we find
with respect to the channel estimate g
pilot,2
yk,q
=

p
1  pilot,2 H (q)
bk =
Yk
g
2Pu
M

X
(q)

j:uj ∈Φu

1
kgk,j k2 w`j
M

+signal × signal + signal × noise + noise × noise

(5)
(6)

As in the classical massive MIMO analysis [10], it is immediate to show that all terms involving
inner products of channel vectors with different indices, inner product of channel vectors times
noise vectors, and noise vectors times noise vectors (terms in (6)) converge to zero with probability 1 as M → ∞. Hence, using the fact that

1
kgk,j k2
M

→ βk,j we have that for sufficiently

large M the second pilot field after maximal ratio combining is given by
pilot,2
yk,q
=

p
2Pu

X

βk,j w`j + zpilot,2
k,q

(7)

(q)
j:uj ∈Φu

where zpilot,2
has mean zero and variance O(1/M ). In brief, the second pilot field yields the
k,q

March 22, 2018

DRAFT

10

weighted sum of the (unique) equal-weight binary codewords for users in pilot group q, with
weighting coefficients given by the corresponding channel large-scale coefficients, plus a small
residual noise plus interference that vanishes for large M . At this point, the decision of whether
pilot q is trusted or not is obtained by the following simple thresholding mechanism:
Trusted pilot detection rule. Set two thresholds τuseful ≥ τinterf ≥ 0, and define the one-bit
b = ∆(x, τ ) is the binary vector
threshold quantizer ∆(·, τ ) such that for any real vector x, x
with components x
bi = 0 if xi < τ and x
bi = 1 if xi ≥ τ . Then, pilot q is trusted at RRH k if the
following two conditions hold:
pilot,2
b k,q = ∆(Re{yk,q
1) w
}, τuseful ) is an equal-weight codeword in W(Q0 , Q0 /2);

2) Letting

denote elementwise product, 1 be the all-1 vector and 0 be the all-0 vector, it must

be
b k,q )
(1 − w

pilot,2
∆(Re{yk,q
}, τinterf ) = 0.

(8)

The above rule is explained as follows: if the sum in (7) contains a single strong user such
√
that 2Pu βk,j > τuseful , while the sum of the all other terms plus noise is sufficiently weak, then
b k,q ∈ W(Q0 , Q0 /2). However, some users using pilots from
condition 1) above is satisfied, i.e., w
the same group Cq , termed co-pilot users, may yield a contribution barely below the threshold
τuseful . In order to control how weaker the co-pilot interference should be with respect to the
useful signal, we introduce a second threshold τinterf , which represents an acceptable “rise over
b k,q , the magnitude
thermal” level. If condition (8) holds, then in the positions of the “zeros” in w
pilot,2
of Re{yk,q
} is below the more restrictive threshold τinterf .

Fig. 2 shows qualitatively the threshold rule for a concrete example with Q0 = 8, where the

sum in (7) contains one strong user and two weaker co-pilot users. In general, a pilot q can be
trusted even in the presence of a large number of users in the same group q, provided that their
collective sum power is indeed sufficiently weak.
C. System Operation and Achievable Spectral Efficiency
For a sufficiently dense deployment of RRHs, each UE can be potentially served by several
RRHs. The network layer routing ensures that the RRHs in the vicinity of any given UE j have
data packets in their queue, ready for transmission to user j. After receiving the UL pilot of the
current TDD slot, RRH k forms a list Uk of users (referred to as the active set of RRH k) that
March 22, 2018

DRAFT

pilot energy

11

pilot field: superposition of co-pilot users

pilot energy

pilot field
useful
interf

pilot energy

pilot field

pilot field

detected equal weight codeword = 10110001

pilot field

(a)

(b)

(c)

Fig. 2: A qualitative example of the coded pilot threshold rule for Q0 = 8 and three co-pilot users. a) geometry
with one RRH and three users; b) individual equal-weight pilot fields after spatial matched filtering; c) received
superposition and two-threshold mechanism. In this case, the pilot q can be trusted.

(q)

can be served in the corresponding DL data subslot. In particular, a user j : uj ∈ Φu is in the
active set if: 1) RRH k determines (by applying the aforementioned trusted pilot detection rule)
that the corresponding pilot q is trusted. Since an equal-weight codeword is uniquely assigned
(q)

to the users in pilot group Cq , the corresponding strong user j : uj ∈ Φu in the proximity of
RRH k is also identified; 2) RRH k has a DL data packet ready to send to user j.
By construction, we have 0 ≤ |Uk | ≤ Q and we assume that the number of RRH antennas is
M ≥ Q, in compliance with the massive MIMO concept of more antennas than users [10]. The
k-th RRH calculates the precoding vectors vk,j for each user j ∈ Uk from its (trusted) channel
(q)

bk,j = g
bk where user j is the unique user in Uk associated
estimates. We introduce the notation g
to pilot group q. The precoder is obtained by using zero-forcing beamforming (ZFBF) as in [21].
Here, however, we consider unit-norm precoding vectors. These are obtained by first arranging
b k = {b
the estimated channel vectors into the M × |Uk | channel matrix G
gk,j : j ∈ Uk }, then

b† = G
b k (G
b HG
b k )−1 , and finally letting
computing the Moore-Penrose pseudo-inverse matrix G
k
k
b † corresponding to g
bk,j , normalized by its magnitude.
vk,j be the column of G
k

(q)

Notice that a given user j : uj ∈ Φu may be in the active set of multiple RRHs. Since
the RRHs make their own local decisions without coordination (apart from the implicit coordination induced by network layer routing), each RRH whose active set contains user j will
send simultaneously the same data packet to user j, achieving implicit macro-diversity. We let
March 22, 2018

DRAFT

12

Aj = {k : ak ∈ Φa , j ∈ Uk } denote the set of RRHs serving user j, and denote by Acj the
complement set with respect to Φa . The DL received signal at user j is given by


!
!
X
X
X
X
X
H
H
H
yj = 
gk,j
vk,j  xj +
gk,j
vk,j 0 xj 0 +
gk,j
vk,j 0 xj 0 + zj (9)
k∈Aj

k∈Acj

j 0 ∈Uk :j 0 6=j

k∈Aj

j 0 ∈Uk

where the first term is the useful signal, the second and third terms correspond to the interference
from RRHs serving user j and RRHs not serving user j, respectively, while zk ∼ CN (0, σN2 /Psfog )

represents the AWGN with Psfog the per-stream DL power and σN2 the noise variance. We assume
unit-energy, zero-mean, and mutually statistically independent data symbols. Hence, the total
transmit power of RRH k in the current DL subslot is given by |Uk |Psfog . When the RRH has no
trusted pilots, it simply does not transmit anything thus achieving power savings in a seamless
way (automatic shut-down in the absence of requested traffic). For future comparison with the
baseline cellular system, the per-RRH average transmit power is given by E[|Uk |]Psfog .
We consider the ergodic spectral efficiency where ergodicity is with respect to the small scale
fading, for fixed realization of Φu (user positions) and Φa (RRH positions). We start from the
general achievable ergodic spectral efficiency expression for user j [21]3


2
|E[useful]|

Cj = log2 1 + σ2
N
2
+ Var(useful) + E[|interference| ]
P fog

(10)

s

and derive a compact expression that will be used in the next section for the stochastic geometry
analysis. Before going into the ergodic rate analysis, it is convenient to distinguish between the
contribution of non-copilot interference and that of co-pilot interference. To this purpose, we
further partition the set of interfering RRHs Acj into a set Aecj of RRHs for which pilot q is
c

trusted, and a set Aj of RRHs for which pilot q is untrusted. The non-copilot interference is
c

due to all data streams transmitted by RRHs k ∈ Aj as well as all data streams from RRHs
k ∈ Aj ∪ Aecj except those associated to the channel estimate obtained from UL pilot q. The
exact closed-form expression for an achievable ergodic rate in (10) is given by:
Proposition 1. For the fog massive MIMO network model defined above, the following ergodic
3

This is generally referred to as a “lower bound” but we remark here that a lower bound to an achievable spectral efficiency
is achievable, therefore, we will simple treat it as our achievable spectral efficiency benchmark.

March 22, 2018

DRAFT

13

spectral efficiency is achievable by ZFBF:


2
p
P p


αk,j βk,j M − |Uk | + 1


k∈A
j


Cj = log2 1 + σ2
,
P
P
P


N
β
|U
|
+
α
β
(M
−
|U
|
+
1)
−
α
β
|U
|
+
k,j k
k,j k,j
k
k,j k,j k


Psfog
k:ak ∈Φa

ec
k∈Aj ∪A
j

ec
k∈A
j

(11)
where
αk,j = P

βk,j

(q)
j 0 :uj 0 ∈Φu

βk,j 0 +

(12)

2
σN
Pu Q

(q)
bk(q) , and where g
bk(q) given
is the scaling coefficient in the conditional mean E[gk,j |b
gk ] = αk,j g

in (3).4

Proof. Appendix A.
It is important to notice that the MMSE scaling factors αk,j appear in (11) uniquely as a
product of the analysis, but have nothing to do with MMSE channel estimation. In fact, the
channel estimates from the UL pilots are given by (3), which is simply a Least-Squares projection
that does not assume any prior knowledge of the large-scale channel gains.
In order to obtain a simple expression, amenable to the stochastic geometry analysis of the
next sections, we consider the limit M → ∞ as in [10]. Notice that the coefficients αk,j defined
(q)

in (12) include the path coefficients of all UEs j 0 : uj 0 ∈ Φ̃u . These dependencies make
the stochastic geometry analysis intractable. However, we notice that the denominator of the
fraction in the RHS of (12) contains a single strong channel gain and many other weak channel
gains, as a consequence of the trusted pilot detection rule. By the symmetry of the PPP, the
mean value of this denominator is independent of the RRH index k ∈ Aj ∪ Aecj . Furthermore,
these denominators should be close to their mean value and therefore, up to small statistical
fluctuations, all approximately equal. With this approximation, letting M → ∞ in (11), we
bk(q) are jointly Gaussian with zero mean and IID components with respect to the space (antenna)
Notice that since gk,j and g
bk(q) , which reduces to a scaling by
dimension, the conditional mean coincides with the linear MMSE estimator of gk,j given g
the factor αk,j .
4

March 22, 2018

DRAFT

14

obtain the large-M spectral efficiency expression


2
P
k∈Aj βk,j 

Cj∞ = log 1 + P
,
2
ec βk,j
k∈A

(13)

j

which is well-known from [10], with the only difference of the coherent combining of multiple
transmissions in the numerator in the case |Aj | ≥ 1 for the already discussed inherent macrodiversity of the scheme.
III. M AIN A NALYTICAL R ESULTS
First, we present analytical expressions for the active co-pilot user density and the active RRH
density. Then, we derive the approximate expression for the spatially averaged spectral efficiency
in the limit of M → ∞.
A. Active Co-pilot User Density
Recall from Section II-B that each RRH identifies its trusted pilots based on a decision
rule involving the two thresholds τuseful and τinterf . Assuming that the large-scale channel gain
coefficients appearing in (7) are decreasing functions of the distance between UE and RRH with
a radial symmetry, for the sake of the stochastic geometry analysis we shall approximate the
trusted pilot detection rule with a purely geometric rule. Namely, the thresholds τuseful and τinterf
correspond to two circular regions each RRH referred to in the following as the coverage disk
and the protection disk with radii Rin and Rout = (1 + ) · Rin , with  ≥ 0, respectively.
Without loss of generality, we can place a reference user at u0 , associated to a given pilot
group Cq , referred to for simplicity as “pilot q”. The reference user can be served by a RRH
at location a0 if an only if a0 ∈ Bu0 (Rin ) (the RRH is within the inner radius of the reference
(q)

user) and a0 ∈
/ Buj (Rout ) for all uj ∈ Φu \ u0 (the RRH is outside the protection radius of
all other users associated to the same pilot q). We say that a user at u0 is “allowed” to receive
in the DL if there is at least one RRH at some position a0 meeting the above condition. Let θ
S
denote the fraction of the disk Bu0 (Rin ) uncovered by the union of disks uj ∈Φu(q) \u0 Buj (Rout ).
Then, conditioned on the uncovered fraction θ, we have
2

P (u0 is allowed |θ) = 1 − eλa πRin θ
March 22, 2018

(14)
DRAFT

15

which follows from the void probability of the PPP Φa (the probability that there exists no point
2
of the PPP [22]) in the uncovered region of area πRin
θ. Averaging (14) over θ gives
Z 1

2
P (u0 is allowed) =
1 − eλa πRin θ fθ (θ) dθ

(15)

0

where fθ (·) denotes the probability density function (PDF) of the uncovered area fraction θ. As
a result, the mean active co-pilot user density is given by
Z 1

2
1 − eλa πRin θ fθ (θ) dθ.
λ̃ = λ P (u0 is allowed) = λ

(16)

0

In light of the fact that there are no available tractable expressions for the PDF fθ (·), a
possible semi-analytic approach consists of using Monte-Carlo simulation to calculate fθ (·) for
any given ratio of λa /λ and evaluate the integral in (14). As an alternative, in order to gain
analytical insight, we extend the approximation proposed in [16] to calculate fθ (·) to the case
Rin ≤ Rout . The accuracy of this approximation is examined later in the section (cf. Example 1).
Using this approach, fθ (·) can be approximated by a mixed-type PDF formed by the convex
combination of a uniform PDF, a point mass at θ = 0, and a point mass at θ = 1. The resulting
approximated PDF is given by (cf. Appendix B)

2
2


1 + e−πλ(Rout +Rin ) − 2 e−πλRout


 

2
ˆ
−πλ(Rout +Rin )2
fθ (θ) = 2 e−πλRout
−
e




e−πλ(Rout +Rin )2

point mass at θ = 0
0<θ<1

(17)

point mass at θ = 1
♦

Using (17) in (16) yields the closed-form approximation for the active co-pilot user density:
!
!
2
2


−πλa Rin
−πλa Rin
1
−
e
1
−
e
2
2
+λ
.
(18)
λ̃ ≈ 2λ e−πλRout − e−πλ(Rin +Rout )
1−
2
πλa Rin
eπλ(Rin +Rout )2
Example 1. Fig. 3 compares, as function of Rin , the active co-pilot user density λ̃ estimated
via (16) and (18) against the simulated counterpart for user density λ = 1 user per unit area,
and different RRH densities λa = 0.5 RRHs per unit area, λa = 1 RRH per unit area, and
λa = 5 RRHs per unit area, and with Rout = 1.25Rin . These settings span the three possible
network scenarios of λa < λ, λa = λ and λa > λ, respectively. As seen in Fig. 3, the value of
March 22, 2018

DRAFT

16

Active co-pilot user density (users/km2)

0.7
Simulation
Semi-analytical
Analytical

λa = 5

0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3

λa = 1

0.2
0.1
0

λa = 0.5
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

Rin

Fig. 3: Active co-pilot user density v. Rin for λa = 0.5 RRHs per unit area, λa = 1 RRH per unit area and λa = 5
RRHs per unit area, with λ = 1 user per unit area and Rout = 1.25Rin .

Rin maximizing the active co-pilot user density decreases with λa (when λ is fixed). The semianalytic approach is also shown. As said before, this approach is very accurate and significantly
more computationally efficient than the full Monte-Carlo system simulation. As can be seen in
Fig. 3, a very satisfactory agreement is observed when Rin is less than or equal to the value that
maximizes λ̃. If Rin is beyond the value that maximizes λ̃, then (18) underestimates the active
co-pilot user density and this estimation error is noticeable when λa > 1. Similar agreement
has been observed for other values of parameters. Therefore, it is reasonable to utilize (18) as a
proxy to optimize the active co-pilot user density up to Rin that maximizes λ̃.

♦

B. Active RRH Density and Transmit Power
The RRH at a0 has an active user corresponding to the pilot under consideration if and only
(q)

if there exists only one user in its coverage disk, i.e., ∃u0 ∈ Ba0 (Rin ) ∩ Φu and no other users
(q)

(q)

in its protection disk, i.e., Ba0 (Rout ) ∩ Φu \ {uo } = ∅. Denoting by Φ̃a the locations of active
(q)

RRHs corresponding to the pilot and by λ̃a the density of active RRHs, we can express


(q)
(q)
λ̃(q)
a = λa P Φu (Ba0 (Rin )) = 1 P Φu (Ba0 (Rout ) \ Ba0 (Rin )) = 0
2

2 −πλRout
= λa λπRin
e

March 22, 2018

(19)
(20)

DRAFT

17
(q)

(q)

where for a region B ⊆ R2 we use the short-hand notation Φu (B) = |Φu ∩ B|, and where


n
(q)
.
(20) follows from the well-known property of PPPs [22] P Φu (B) = n = e−λ|B| (λ|B|)
n!
It is also immediate to express the average number of users served by the RRH as
2

2 −πλRout
e
.
E[|U0 |] = QλπRin

(21)

Multiplying by the per-stream power Psfog , we obtain the average RRH transmit power as
2

2 −πλRout
Pa = Psfog Q λπRin
e
.

(22)

C. Spectral Efficiency in the Large Antenna Regime
Let η denote the propagation pathloss exponent and rk,j = |ak − uj | the distance between
RRH k and UE j. We assume that the large-scale channel gains obey the usual distance-based
−η
polynomial decay law βk,j = rk,j
. Using this in (13), the ergodic spectral efficiency of the typical

user can be written as


σS2
= log2 1 + 2 ,
σI

C0∞
2

(23)

−2 η
rk,0
. In turn, (23) involves multiple levels of
randomness through |A0 |, rk,0 ∀k ∈ A0 , and rk,0 ∀k ∈ Aec0 . We marginalize the spectral efficiency

where σS2 =

P

k∈A0

−η
rk,0

and σI2 =

P

ec
k∈A
0

C0∞ in multiple steps to characterize the spatially averaged per-user spectral efficiency, given by
C̄0∞


 
N
  

X
σS2
=
P |A0 | = n |A0 | > 0 E E log2 1 + 2 |σS2 .
σI
n=1

(24)

The value of N in (24) is chosen sufficiently large such that P (|A0 | = N + 1) is negligible, the
inner expectation is over the interference (i.e., r0,k ∀k ∈ Aec0 ) while the outer expectation is over
the signal (i.e., r0,k ∀k ∈ A0 ).

The probability that the number of RRHs in the uncovered area equals n can be written as
R1



P |A0 | = n |A0 | > 0 =

P (Φa (θB(0, Rin )) = n) fθ (θ) dθ

0
N R1
P
n0 =1 0

.

(25)

P (Φa (θB(0, Rin )) = n0 ) fθ (θ) dθ

This can be computed either by using the PDF of the uncovered area fraction fθ (θ) obtained via
simulation (semi-analytic method), or using approximation (17). By invoking (17), the integral
March 22, 2018

DRAFT

18

in (25) is given by
Z1
P (Φa (θB(0, Rin )) = n) fθ (θ) dθ
0




2
2 +(R
2
2
−πλ(Rout +Rin )2
−πλ(Rout
2
−πλRout
out +Rin ) )
−
e
e
Γ̄
n
+
1,
πR
λ
=
e
a
in
2
n! πλa Rin
2 n
2
2 (πλa Rin )
+ e−πλa Rin −πλ(Rout +Rin )
.
n!

(26)

where Γ̄(·, ·) is the lower incomplete Gamma function.
Next, by virtue of [23, Lemma 1], the inner expectation in (24) can be expressed as


 
Z ∞ 
 
σS2
1 −γ σI2
2
−γ(σI2 +σS2 )
E log2 1 + 2 |σS = E
e
−e
dγ
σI
γ
0
Z ∞  h
i
h
i

1
2
2
2
E e−γ σI − E e−γ σI e−γ σS dγ
=
γ
0

(27)
(28)

Due to the activation of the RRH through the on-the-fly pilot contamination control mechanism
(cf. Section II-B), the interfering RRH locations in the downlink (i.e., appearing in the set Aec0 )
are dependent on their user locations and violate the PPP condition. In order to overcome this
obstacle, we borrow a modeling assumption that was shown to be tight in different scenarios
[24], [25] and whose validity for our purposes is examined later in Example 2.
Assumption 1: The RRH locations outside the receiver’s protection disk Bu0 (Rout ) belong to
(q)

another independent PPP with matched density λ̃a (cf. (20)).

♦

σI2

Under Assumption 1, the expectation of e−γ over this PPP yields



h
i
X
2
−2η 
E e−γ σI = E exp −γ
rk,0

(29)

ec
k∈A
0


Z
(q)
= exp −2π λ̃a

∞

Rout



−γ r−2η

1−e




r dr


!
(q) η1
1
γ
π
λ̃
γ
a
2
Γ̄ − , 2η
= exp π λ̃(q)
a Rout +
η
η Rout

(30)
(31)

where (30) follows from the PGFL (probability generating functional) of the PPP [22] and (31)
follows from the change of variable γ r−2η → r0 and then solving the integral in (30).

Then, the remaining randomness in C0∞ is due to σS2 . Conditioned on |A0 | = n, the distance

March 22, 2018

DRAFT

19

from the intended RRH locations to the user can be ordered as r0,0 , r1,0 , . . . , rn−1,0 , where rn−1,0
is the distance corresponding to the nth strongest serving RRH. Then, we have
!2
n−1
X
−η
2
σS =
rk,0 .

(32)

k=0

Here, the intended RRHs are uniformly distributed in the uncovered region of B0 (Rin ) that
is arbitrarily shaped and hence their distances are not tractable in general. Again, we make a
modeling assumption (the accuracy of which is also validated in Example 2) in order to proceed
with the closed-form analysis.
Assumption 2: The serving RRHs are uniformly distributed in the whole disk B0 (Rin ) and

the distances {rk,0 }n−1
k=0 are replaced with their expected values.

♦

Under Assumption 2, we have
σS2 ≈

n−1
X

!2
(E [rk,0 ])−η

(33)

k=0

where the expected value of the distance between the user and the mth closest point when
|A0 | = n is
E [rm,0 ] = Rin

Γ(m + 23 )Γ(n + 1)
Γ(m + 1)Γ(n + 32 )

m = 0, 1, . . . , n − 1

(34)

which leads to a deterministic value for σS2 in (33) and thus avoids the outer expectation in (24).
Finally an approximation for C̄0∞ can be obtained by plugging (25), (28), (31), (33) and (34) in
(24).
Example 2. Consider RRH density λa = 31.8 RRHs/km2 (corresponding to an average of one
RRH per circular cell of radius 100 m), λ = λa , η = 3.75, and Q = 40. Fig. 4a compares the
closed-form approximation C̄0∞ in (24) based on (17) and Assumptions 1-2 with its simulated
counterpart for protection radius set to Rout = 1.2Rin . The simulated result corresponds to
explicit computation of the spectral efficiency without any modeling assumptions, computed
through lengthy Monte-Carlo over many network realizations. As the figure reveals, the match
between analysis and simulation is satisfactory, thereby supporting the validity of the modeling

March 22, 2018

DRAFT

20

7
Simulation
Analytical

6

45

λ̃

5

40
35

4

30

3

25
2

¯∞

C0

20

1

15
10
10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

0
100

Rin (m)

(a) Average user spectral efficiency

140

Average area spectral efficiency per pilot

50

Active co-pilot user density (users/km2)

Average user spectral efficiency (b/s/Hz)

55

120

Simulation
Analytical

100
80
60

Rout = 1.2 Rin

R

out

=R

in

40
20
0
10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Rin (m)

(b) Average area spectral efficiency per pilot

Fig. 4: Spectral efficiency v. Rin for λa = 31.8 RRHs/ km2 , λ = λa , Q = 40 and η = 3.75.

assumptions.5 From Fig. 4a, we notice that the user spectral efficiency decreases with coverage
and protection radii. This is because of the increase in the aggregate interference from the active
RRHs with Rin (cf. (20)). However, low values of Rin yield small spatial pilot reuse (cf. Fig. 4a).
This in turn reduces the spatially averaged area spectral efficiency (b/s/Hz/km2 ) per pilot, defined
by C̄ pilot , λ̃ C̄0∞ . Therefore, Rin must optimized by striking a good tradeoff between pilot reuse
and per-user spectral efficiency.
Shown in Fig. 4b is C̄ pilot with λ̃ given by (18) and R̄0 given by (24)), alongside the simulation
counterpart. The average area spectral efficiency per pilot C̄ pilot is uniformly superior with
Rout = Rin over Rout = 1.2Rin . Again, the match is satisfactory with error due to the modeling
assumptions in the range of 5-12% for the typical values of Rin . Therefore, it is reasonable to
consider the analytical approximation of C̄ pilot as a proxy to tune the radii of the pilot detection
rule, while the exact value of the area spectral efficiency per pilot can be obtained by conducting
simulations for specific values of Rin .

♦

We conclude by mentioning that, since the signals for different pilots q are completely
decoupled by the massive MIMO in the regime M → ∞, the total average area spectral efficiency
(b/s/Hz per unit area) of the fog massive MIMO system operating with Q pilot groups is simply
given by C fog = QC̄ pilot .
5

The validity of these assumptions is also supported by extensive numerical investigations (not reported here, due to space
limitations).
March 22, 2018

DRAFT

21

IV. C ELLULAR M ASSIVE MIMO S YSTEM
In this section, we briefly present the system model and achievable spectral efficiency analysis
for a baseline cellular massive MIMO system that we use as a term of comparison for our fog
massive MIMO system. Differently from the classical works on massive MIMO (e.g., [10], [21],
[26], [27]), which have mostly considered regular (e.g., hexagonal) cells and integer pilot reuse
factors, here we consider UEs and BSs placed according to the PPPs Φu and Φa , respectively,
and a statistical fractional UL pilot reuse scheme, which is more representative of a “small-cell”
deployment.
A. System Configuration
In the considered cellular massive MIMO system, each user is served by the closest BS,
resulting in the standard Voronoi-tessellated network geometry. As for the fog system, we assume
a coherence block of T dimensions, L of which are dedicated to UL mutually orthogonal pilot
sequences. A reference BS at a0 serves |U0 | = min(|V0 |, Np ) users in the DL, where |V0 |
denotes the number of users in its Voronoi cell and 0 < Np ≤ L is a parameter that controls the
(fractional) pilot reuse across the cells. Letting Np = L yields reuse 1 (all pilots are used in all
cells, for sufficiently large user density). Otherwise, for Np < L, we assume that |U0 | out of the
L available pilots are selected at random and independently across the cells. This implies that
the allocation of pilots to users is done without inter-cell coordination. Yet, all users served in
the same cell use mutually orthogonal pilots. The per-stream power in cellular system Pscell is
fixed such that the average power transmitted by each BS is same as the average power of the
RRHs of the fog system. Using the expression for the average number of users served by a BS
given in Appendix C, the per-stream power in the cellular system is related to the average BS
power Pa as Pscell = Pa /E [|U0 |]. Furthermore, the location of BSs serving users associate to a
specific pilot q ∈ [L] can be viewed as a thinned version of the original PPP, denoted hereafter
(q)

by Φ̃a , whose density equals pa λa . The thinning probability pa equals the probability that the
pilot is assigned to one of the U0 users, which can be computed as
Np −1
1 X
Γ(` + c)
(λu )` (cλa )c
Np
+
(` − Np )
.
pa =
L
L `=0
Γ(` + 1)Γ(c) (cλa + λu )`+c

March 22, 2018

(35)

DRAFT

22

B. Spectral Efficiency in the Large Antenna Regime
Following the similar approach of fog massive MIMO (cf. Section II-C), one can derive the
ergodic user spectral efficiency of cellular massive MIMO, where in this case |Aj | = 1 for
any served user at uj . For the sake of brevity, in this section we directly consider the spectral
efficiency in the limit of M → ∞ and obtain its spatial averaged quantity. The SIR experienced
by a typical user located at u0 , served by a BS located at a0 , is expressed as
−2 η
2
β0,0
r0,0
P
SIR0 =
= −2 η
P
2
βk,0
r1,0 +
ec
k∈A
0

(36)

−2 η
r0,k

ec \{1}
k∈A
0

where in (36) r1,0 denotes the distance from the user at u0 to the strongest interfering BS located
(q)

at a1 ∈ Φ̃a . At this point, as in [25], [28], [29], we invoke the modeling assumption introduced
in Section III-C, i.e., the locations of interfering BSs outside Bu0 (r1,0 ) belongs to a PPP with
scaled-down density pa λa and replace the corresponding collective interference term with its
spatial average. This yields
SIR0 ≈

−2 η
r0,0
−2 η
r1,0
+

πλa pa 2−2η
r
η−1 1,0

=

δ02η
1+

πλa pa 2
r
η−1 1,0

,

(37)

where (37) follows by replacing the second term in the denominator of (36) with its expectation
computed applying Campbell’s theorem and by introducing δ0 = r1,0 /r0,0 > 1.
Next, the average user spectral efficiency in the cellular massive MIMO network can be written
as
C̄0∞ =

Z
1

∞

Z
0

log2 1 +

!

δ02η

∞

1+

πλa pa 2
r
η−1 1,0

fr1,0 ,δ0 (r1,0 , δ0 ) dr1,0 dδ0

(38)

where the PDF fr1,0 ,δ0 (·, ·) is given by
2

fr1,0 ,δ0 (r1,0 , δ0 ) = pa (2πλa )



r1,0
δ0

3
e



2
a
−πλa r1,0
pa + 1−p
2
δ0

.

(39)

obtained by applying [30, Lemma 1]. We can obtain the aggregate average spectral efficiency
of all the users of a cell by scaling the average user spectral efficiency C̄0∞ by the average
number of users served by each BS. Consequently, the total average area spectral efficiency of

March 22, 2018

DRAFT

23

the cellular massive MIMO system equals
C cellular = λa E[|U0 |] C̄0∞ .

(40)

where C̄0∞ is given in (38) and E[|U0 |] is given in Appendix C.
We tested the above approximated analytical expressions against the full system Monte Carlo
simulation (cf. Example 3), with excellent agreement.
TABLE I: Average User and Area Spectral Efficiencies of Cellular Massive MIMO
Np
10
20
30
40

C̄0∞ (b/s/Hz)
Analytical Simulation
10.69
10.78
9.73
9.74
9.62
9.69
9.60
9.70

C cellular (b/s/Hz/km2 )
Analytical Simulation
2587.9
2613.5
2998.2
3013.5
3051.5
3104.5
3056.9
3118.1

Example 3. Consider λa = 31.8 RRHs/km2 , λu = 10λa , L = 40 and η = 3.75, yielding
pa = 0.25. Shown in Table. I is a comparison of C̄0∞ (cf. (38)) and C cellular (cf. (40)) against their
simulated counterparts. As can be seen, the area spectral efficiency increases with Np , which
indicate that it is beneficial to utilize all the available orthogonal pilots to serve the maximum
number of users (for the RRH and user densities chosen in this example).
V. P ERFORMANCE E VALUATION
With the theoretical framework developed in the previous sections, we now proceed to evaluate
the performance of optimized fog massive MIMO system and contrast it with the cellular massive
MIMO baseline. In fog massive MIMO, we assume  = 0 (i.e., Rout = Rin ) and pilot dimension
L = 60 where the UL pilot codebook is formed as described in Section II-A, with Q = 40
and Q0 = 20. In cellular massive MIMO, we consider L = 60 orthogonal pilot sequences of
dimension 60 and Np = L, which maximizes the area spectral efficiency while minimizing the
outage probability. We choose λa = 31.8 RRHs/ km2 , η = 3.75 and λu = Qλ for both the fog
and cellular massive MIMO systems. In all the following results, the pilot overhead is not taken
into account. Depending on the number of signal dimensions available per slot T , the spectral
March 22, 2018

DRAFT

24

Area spectral efficiency (b/s/Hz/km2) per pilot

1
Simulation
Analytical

0.9

Outage probability

0.8
0.7

Rin = [120, 100, 80] m

0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
10-2

10-1

100

λ/λa

(a) Outage probability

101

120
Simulation
Analytical

100

Rin = 80 m

80

60

Rin = 100 m

40
Rin = 120 m

20

0
10-2

10-1

100

101

λ/λa

(b) Average area spectral efficiency per pilot

Fig. 5: Performance of fog massive MIMO as function of λ/λa with Rin = 80 m, Rin = 100 m and Rin = 120
m,  = 0, λa = 31.8 RRHs/ km2 , and η = 3.75.

efficiencies of fog and cellular massive MIMO systems should be scaled by the pilot overhead
factor (1 − TL ).
Example 4. Fig. 5a shows, as function of λ/λa , the outage probability in a fog massive MIMO
network, which is defined as the probability of the event that there is no serving RRH in within
Rin centered around the user, i.e., Pout = P(Bc (0, Rin ) ∩ Φa = ∅), while Fig. 5b shows the
corresponding average area spectral efficiency per pilot. We compare different choices Rin = 80
m, Rin = 100 m and Rin = 120 m of the coverage radius. As seen in Fig. 5a, the outage
probability decreases with Rin at low values of λ/λa , while it increases with Rin at high values
of λ/λa . As anticipated before, for a given value of Rin , the area spectral efficiency per pilot (cf.
Fig. 5b) progressively increases with λ/λa and eventually decreases at higher values of λ/λa
due to the excessive number of pilot collisions, essentially preventing most users to be served
by any RRH.

♦

Example 5. Fig. 6a compares, as function of λ/λa , the average area spectral efficiencies of fog
and cellular massive MIMO systems. The corresponding user spectral efficiencies (restricted to
users that are effectively served, i.e., not in outage) are shown in Fig. 6b. For large coverage
radius (Rin = 160m), the outage probability is around 10 − 20% for λ/λa ∈ [0.01, 0.1], and
the resulting average area spectral efficiency is comparable (15 − 25% lower) to its cellular
counterpart. A smaller coverage radius (Rin = 80 m) outperforms the larger radius for higher
March 22, 2018

DRAFT

30

6000

5000

Simulation
Analytical

Average user spectral efficiency (b/s/Hz)

Average area spectral efficiency (b/s/Hz/km2)

25

Cellular
N p= 60

25
20

4000

3000

Fog
Rin = 80 m

Fog, Rin = 80 m

15

2000

10

Fog
Rin = 160 m

1000

0
10-2

Simulation
Analytical

10-1
λ/λa

Fog, Rin = 160 m
Cellular
N p= 60

5
0
10-2

100

(a) Average area spectral efficiency

10-1
λ/λa

100

(b) Average user spectral efficiency

Fig. 6: Performance evaluation of fog and cellular massive MIMO as function of λ/λa with M → ∞, λa =

1800

14

Average user spectral efficiency (b/s/Hz)

Average area spectral efficiency (b/s/Hz/km2)

31.8 RRHs/ km2 , λu = Qλ, Q = 40, Q0 = 20, L = 60, η = 3.75,  = 0 and Np = 60.

1600
1400

Cellular
Np = 60

1200
1000
800

Fog
Rin = 160 m

600
400
200
0
10-2

Fog
Rin = 80 m
10-1

100

λ/λa

(a) Average area spectral efficiency

12

Fog
Rin = 80 m

Fog
Rin = 160 m

10
8
6
4
2
0
10-2

Cellular
Np = 60

10-1

100

λ/λa

(b) Average user spectral efficiency

Fig. 7: Performance evaluation of fog and cellular massive MIMO as function of λ/λa with M = 64, λa =
31.8 RRHs/ km2 , λu = Qλ, Q = 40, Q0 = 20, L = 60, η = 3.75,  = 0 and Np = 60.

user density λ/λa ≥ 0.3.

♦

Example 6. It is also useful to have an idea of how meaningful are the analytic results based
on stochastic geometry and M → ∞ in terms of the qualitative behavior of the system, for
the sake of obtaining system design guidelines based on the analysis. To this purpose, we
performed Monte-Carlo simulations evaluating directly the exact finite M ergodic achievable
spectral efficiency expression in Proposition 1 (as well as its counterpart for the cellular case).
As seen in Fig. 7a, with Rin = 160 m, the area spectral efficiency of fog massive MIMO
approaches the value of cellular massive MIMO for λ/λa ∈ [0.01, 0.1], and with Rin = 80 m it
March 22, 2018

DRAFT

26

is slightly higher than its cellular counterpart for λ/λa ≥ 0.3. As anticipated before, the average
user spectral efficiency of fog massive MIMO (cf. Fig. 7b) is uniformly superior over its cellular
counterpart when adapting the radius to the user density (in this case, changing from Rin = 160
m to Rin = 80 m as λ/λa increases, which in practice means to decrease the UL pilot power as
♦

the user density increases).
VI. S UMMARY

In this paper we have proposed and analyzed an architecture nicknamed “fog massive MIMO”,
where a large number of multiantenna RRHs are densely deployed, and serve the UEs using
ZFBF, based on channel estimates obtained from the UL pilots (exploiting TDD reciprocity).
The key difference between the proposed system and a standard small-cell system is that there is
no need for explicit user-cell association, and the users are not controlled by the RRHs. In fact,
as soon as RRH receives an UL pilot, it can immediately “beamform back” a DL data packet to
the user that has sent that pilot, provided that such pilot is not (severely) contaminated. This “onthe-fly” pilot contamination control is obtained using a novel coded pilot approach, that allows
very simple identification of the uncontaminated pilots at each RRH. The proposed system is
completely user-centric, and achieves the following advantages over a standard small-cell system:
i) RRHs spend transmit power only when they receive uncontaminated pilots from users in their
vicinity, otherwise they can stay idle and save power; ii) the latency between an UL data request
and a DL data transmission is a single TDD resource block (e.g., 1ms); iii) the system creates
naturally “hot-spots”, by tuning down the UL pilot power when the user density increases, such
that the utilization of the RRHs is maintained at its optimal value; iv) the users effectively
served by the system (i.e., not in outage), achieve a very high rate, much higher than the cellular
counterpart; v) the user-centric operations require no handoff and orthogonal pilot (re)allocation
whenever users migrate across the “fog” of RRHs, thus much lower protocol overhead with
respect to conventional small-cell systems especially in the regime of high mobility. On the
other hand, the proposed system suffers from a relatively large outage probability (fraction of
users that are not served by any RRH). This indicates that such system is suited as a second
tier, underneath a conventional cellular tier-1 that provides coverage and connectivity to all
users, albeit at lower data rates. We would like to remark that the investigations in [14], [15],
[31], which consider scenarios with more realistic channel models and where sectorization is
March 22, 2018

DRAFT

27

exploited, suggest that the proposed systems can outperform the cellular baseline in terms of
area spectral efficiency, while still preserving the aforementioned low-latency low-complexity
user-centric operation.
A PPENDIX A
P ROOF OF P ROPOSITION 1
In order to carry out the ergodic rate analysis, we shall use repeatedly the so-called MMSE
decomposition
(q)

bk + ek,j ,
gk,j = αk,j g
(q)

bk
where the estimation error vector ek,j = gk,j − αk,j g
per-component variance βk,j (1 − αk,j ) and where

bk(q)
g

(41)

is Gaussian IID with mean zero and

and ek,j are uncorrelated and, because of

joint Gaussianity, mutually independent.
Let j indicate the reference user for which we wish to compute the useful signal and interbk0 ,j 0
ference contributions. Consider any RRH-UE pair (k 0 , j 0 ) for which the channel estimate g
contains gk0 ,j (notice: this can happen only if either j 0 = j or j 0 6= j but both users j and j 0 are
associated to the same pilot group q), then
(q)

gkH0 ,j vk0 ,j 0 = αk0 ,j (b
gk0 )H vk0 ,j 0 + eHk0 ,j vk0 ,j 0
q
q
0
0
αk ,j βk ,j XM −|Uk0 |+1 + βk0 ,j (1 − αk0 ,j )G,
=

(42)

where Xm denotes a chi-squared RV with 2m degrees of freedom and mean m, and G denotes a
∼ CN (0, 1) RV. This follows from a well-known property of the pseudo-inverse of a Gaussian
IID matrix with components ∼ CN (0, 1) and dimension M × |Uk0 |, yielding the chi-squared
term with 2(M − |Uk0 | + 1) degrees of freedom.

Let k 0 denote a RRH for which pilot q is trusted, and consider any precoding vector vk0 ,j 0

where user j 0 is associated to a different (trusted) pilot q 0 6= q. By the orthogonality of vk0 ,j 0 and
6
bk(q)
g
0 we have

(q)

gk0 )H vk0 ,j 0 + eHk0 ,j vk0 ,j 0 =
gkH0 ,j vk0 ,j 0 = αk0 ,j (b

q
βk0 ,j (1 − αk0 ,j )G

(43)

6
For simplicity of notation, and since this is clear from the context, we use G and X to indicate Gaussian and chi-squared
RVs, although these are different and mutually independent in different expressions.

March 22, 2018

DRAFT

28

Finally, for all RRH k 0 for which pilot q is not trusted, it follows that gk0 ,j does not appear in
(q 0 )

any of the channel estimates {b
gk0 } used to compute the ZFBF precoding vectors. Hence, the

precoding vectors vk0 ,j 0 of RRH k 0 are simply unit vectors statistically independent of gk0 ,j , and
we have
gkH0 ,j vk0 ,j 0 =

p
βk0 ,j G.

(44)

Using the above results, we can determine each term appearing in the achievable spectral efficiency expression (10). In particular, using (42), the expectation of the useful signal coefficient,
p
p
P
i.e., of the first term in (9), can be written as E[useful] = k∈Aj αk,j βk,j E[ XM −|Uk |+1,k ].
Since we are interested in the regime of M  |Uk | (massive MIMO regime), by the law of large
numbers,

1
X
M −|Uk |+1 M −|Uk |+1

→ 1 w.p.1. Hence, a simplified large-M approximation yields

E[useful] =

Xp
p
αk,j βk,j M − |Uk | + 1.

(45)

k∈Aj

Under this approximation, the variance of the useful signal term is given by
Var(useful) ≈

X
k∈Aj

βk,j (1 − αk,j ).

(46)

As far as multiuser interference is concerned, we distinguish between the non-copilot interference
and the co-pilot interference. The non-copilot interference is due to all data streams transmitted
c
by RRHs k ∈ A as well as all data streams from RRHs k ∈ Aj ∪ Aec , except those set to users
j

j

j 0 6= j also useing pilot q. We notice that the interference due to data streams sent by RRHs
k ∈ Aj ∪ Aecj to UEs j 0 6= j generate terms of the type (43). This yields the interference power
E[|residual ZF interference|2 ] =

X
ec
k∈Aj ∪A
j

βk,j (1 − αk,j )(|Uk | − 1)

(47)

c

The interference due to RRHs k ∈ Aj yields terms of the type (44), thus
E[|non-copilot interference|2 ] =

X
c
k∈Aj

βk,j |Uk |

(48)

Finally, the copilot interference includes one term of the type of (42) for each RRH k ∈ Aecj . We

March 22, 2018

DRAFT

29

have
"
E[|copilot interference|2 ] =

X
ec
k∈A
j

=

X
ec
k∈A
j

E

q
q
αk,j βk,j XM −|Uk |+1,k + βk,j (1 − αk,j )Gk

αk,j βk,j (M − |Uk | + 1) + βk,j (1 − αk,j )

2

#

(49)

Plugging (45)-(49) in (10) yields the final expression for Cj as in (11).
A PPENDIX B
P ROOF OF (17)
Denote by ν the expected uncovered area fraction of general Borel set B and 1(·) the indicator
function returning 1 if its argument is true and 0 otherwise. Then, we have
 Z
Z
1(x is not covered) dx =
E [1(x is not covered)] dx
E
B
B
Z
P (x is not covered) dx
=

(50)
(51)

B

Invoking the void probability of a PPP in (51) and dividing the resulting expression by |B| gives
the expected uncovered area fraction as
2

ν = e−πλRout

(52)

The main idea behind (17) consists of approximating fθ (·) with two point masses at θ = 0 and
θ = 1, and a uniform distribution for θ ∈ [0, 1]. Let us denote by p0 and p1 the point masses of
fˆθ (·) at θ = 0 and θ = 1, respectively, and by pu the uniform distribution level of fˆθ (·). Then,
we have
p 0 + pu + p1 = 1
pu
2
+ p1 = e−πλRout
2

(53)
(54)

where (54) follows by matching the mean with the value calculated in (52). Furthermore, the
point mass at θ = 1 is equal to the probability that no other user is within distance Rin + Rout ,
i.e.,
2

p1 = e−πλ(Rin +Rout ) .
March 22, 2018

(55)
DRAFT

30

Finally, (53), (54), and (55) determine the values of p0 , p1 and pu , yielding (17).
A PPENDIX C
AVERAGE N UMBER OF U SERS P ER C ELL
Let us denote by pa the probability that a BS assigns pilot q to one of its associated users.
Then, the locations of BSs which also use pilot q can be viewed as a thinned version of the
(q)

original point process, denoted by Φ̃a , whose density equals pa λa . The thinning probability pa ,
can computed as
pa =
=
=

∞
X
`=0
∞
X
`=0
∞
X
`=0

=

P ( Pilot q is assigned to a user in U0 ||U0 | = `) P (|U0 | = `)
L−1
`−1

L
`

(56)


P (|U0 | = `)

(57)

`
P (|U0 | = `)
L

(58)

1
E [|U0 |]
L

(59)

In turn, the expectation in (59) is written as
E [|U0 |] = E [min (|V0 |, Np )]

(60)

Np −1

=

X
`=0

=

` P (|V0 | = `) + Np P (|V0 | ≥ Np )

Np −1

Np −1

X

X

`=0

` P (|V0 | = `) + Np

1−

`=0

(61)
!

P (|V0 | = `)

(62)

Np −1

= Np +

X
`=0

(` − Np ) P (|V0 | = `) .

(63)

where the probability mass function of the number of points in Φu ∩ V0 where V0 is a Voronoi
region of Φa is obtained by approximating the area of the Voronoi cell by a gamma-distributed
random variable with a shape parameter c = 3.575 and a scale parameter 1/cλa [32], giving
P (|V0 | = `) =

March 22, 2018

Γ(` + c)
(λu )` (cλa )c
Γ(` + 1)Γ(c) (cλa + λu )`+c

` = 0, 1, 2, . . .

(64)

DRAFT

31

Plugging (64) in (63) yields the sought value of E [|U0 |], which is further invoked in (59) to
obtain (35).
R EFERENCES
[1] E. Baştuğ, M. Bennis, M. Médard, and M. Debbah, “Toward interconnected virtual reality: Opportunities, challenges, and
enablers,” IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 55, no. 6, pp. 110–117, June 2017.
[2] Y. Qi, M. Hunukumbure, M. Nekovee, J. Lorca, and V. Sgardoni, “Quantifying data rate and bandwidth requirements for
immersive 5G experience,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Commun. Workshops, May 2016, pp. 455–461.
[3] A. Aijaz, M. Dohler, A. H. Aghvami, V. Friderikos, and M. Frodigh, “Realizing the tactile internet: Haptic communications
over next generation 5G cellular networks,” IEEE Wireless Commun., vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 82–89, Apr. 2017.
[4] P. Luoto, M. Bennis, P. Pirinen, S. Samarakoon, K. Horneman, and M. Latva-aho, “System level performance evaluation
of LTE-V2X network,” in Proc. European Wireless Conf. VDE, May 2016, pp. 1–5.
[5] C. X. Mavromoustakis, G. Mastorakis, and J. M. Batalla, Internet of Things (IoT) in 5G Mobile Technologies, Springer
Publishing Company, Inc., 1st edition, 2016.
[6] F. Boccardi, R. W. Heath Jr., A. Lozano, T. Marzetta, and P. Popovski, “Five disruptive technology directions for 5G,”
IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 74–80, Feb. 2014.
[7] E. Hossain, M. Rasti, H. Tabassum, and A. Abdelnasser, “Evolution toward 5G multi-tier cellular wireless networks: An
interference management perspective,” IEEE Wireless Commun., vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 118–127, June 2014.
[8] H. Ishii, Y. Kishiyama, and H. Takahashi, “A novel architecture for LTE-B: C-plane/U-plane split and phantom cell
concept,” in 2012 IEEE Globecom Workshops, Dec. 2012, pp. 624–630.
[9] Viavi Solutions Inc.,

“Extreme non-uniformity of cellular networks – the answer: Small cells,”

Available online:

http://www.slideshare.net/SmallCellForum1/extreme-nonuniformity-of-cellular-networks-the-answer-small-cells, Feb. 2016.
[10] T. L. Marzetta, “Noncooperative cellular wireless with unlimited numbers of base station antennas,” IEEE Trans. Wireless
Commun., vol. 9, no. 11, pp. 3590–3600, Nov. 2010.
[11] 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.
[12] J. G. Andrews, “Seven ways that HetNets are a cellular paradigm shift,” IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 51, no. 3, Mar. 2013.
[13] J. Jose, A. Ashikhmin, T. L. Marzetta, and S. Vishwanath, “Pilot contamination and precoding in multi-cell TDD systems,”
IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 10, no. 8, pp. 2640–2651, Aug. 2011.
[14] O. Y. Bursalioglu, C. Wang, H. Papadopoulos, and G. Caire, “RRH based massive MIMO with “on the fly” pilot
contamination control,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Commun., May 2016, pp. 1–7.
[15] O. Y. Bursalioglu, C. Wang, H. Papadopoulos, and G. Caire, “A novel alternative to cloud RAN for throughput densification:
Coded pilots and fast user-packet scheduling at remote radio heads,” in Proc. Annual Asilomar Conf. Signals, Syst., Comp.,
Nov. 2016, pp. 3–10.
[16] M. Haenggi and A. Sarkar, “Unique coverage in boolean models,” Statistics & Probability Lett., vol. 123, pp. 1–7, 2017.
[17] O. Simeone, A. Maeder, M. Peng, O. Sahin, and W. Yu, “Cloud radio access network: Virtualizing wireless access for
dense heterogeneous systems,” KICS J. Commun. Netw., vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 135–149, Apr. 2016.
[18] L. Liu, P. Patil, and W. Yu, “An uplink-downlink duality for cloud radio access network,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Symp. Inform.
Theory, July 2016, pp. 1606–1610.

March 22, 2018

DRAFT

32

[19] C. Shepard, H. Yu, N. Anand, L. E. Li, T. Marzetta, R. Yang, and L. Zhong, “Argos: Practical many-antenna base stations,”
in Proc. ACM int. conf. on Mobile comp. and net. 2012, pp. 53–64, ACM.
[20] R. Rogalin, O. Y. Bursalioglu, H. C. Papadopoulos, G. Caire, A. F. Molisch, A. Michaloliakos, V. Balan, and K. Psounis,
“Scalable synchronization and reciprocity calibration for distributed multiuser MIMO,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun.,
vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 1815–1831, Apr. 2014.
[21] T. L. Marzetta, E. G. Larsson, H. Yang, and H. Q. Ngo, Fundamentals of massive MIMO, Cambridge Univ. Press,
Cambridge, U. K., 2016.
[22] M. Haenggi, Stochastic Geometry for Wireless Networks, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, U. K., 2012.
[23] K. A. Hamdi, “A useful lemma for capacity analysis of fading interference channels,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 58, no.
2, pp. 411–416, Feb. 2010.
[24] F. Baccelli, J. Li, T. Richardson, S. Shakkottai, S. Subramanian, and X. Wu, “On optimizing CSMA for wide area ad-hoc
networks,” in Proc. Int. Symp. Modell. Opt. Mobile, Ad-hoc Wireless Netw., May 2011, pp. 354–359.
[25] R. K. Mungara, X. Zhang, A. Lozano, and R. W. Heath Jr., “Analytical characterization of ITLinQ: Channel allocation for
Device-to-Device communication networks,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 15, no. 5, pp. 3603–3615, May 2016.
[26] J. Hoydis, S. ten Brink, and M. Debbah, “Massive MIMO in the UL/DL of cellular networks: How many antennas do we
need?,” IEEE J. Select. Areas Commun., vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 160–171, 2013.
[27] H. Huh, G. Caire, H. C. Papadopoulos, and S. A. Ramprashad, “Achieving massive MIMO spectral efficiency with a
not-so-large number of antennas,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 11, no. 9, pp. 3226–3239, 2012.
[28] R. K. Mungara, D. Morales-Jiménez, and A. Lozano, “System-level performance of interference alignment,” IEEE Trans.
Wireless Commun., vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 1060–1070, Feb. 2015.
[29] G. George, R. K. Mungara, and A. Lozano, “An analytical framework for Device-to-Device communication in cellular
networks,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 14, no. 11, pp. 6297–6310, Nov. 2015.
[30] H. S. Dhillon, R. K. Ganti, and J. G. Andrews, “Modeling non-uniform UE distributions in downlink cellular networks,”
IEEE Wireless Commun. Lett., vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 339–342, June 2013.
[31] Z. Li, N. Rupasinghe, O. Y. Bursalioglu, C. Wang, H. Papadopoulos, and G. Caire, “Directional training and fast sectorbased processing schemes for mmwave channels,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. Commun., May 2017, pp. 1–7.
[32] H. ElSawy, A. Sultan-Salem, M. S. Alouini, and M. Z. Win, “Modeling and analysis of cellular networks using stochastic
geometry: A tutorial,” IEEE Commun. Surveys Tuts., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 167–203, First Quarter 2017.

March 22, 2018

DRAFT

