1

Superimposed Pilots are Superior for Mitigating
Pilot Contamination in Massive MIMO

arXiv:1603.00648v3 [] 2 Aug 2017

Karthik Upadhya, Student Member, IEEE, Sergiy A. Vorobyov, Senior Member, IEEE,
Mikko Vehkapera, Member, IEEE

Abstract—In this paper, superimposed pilots are introduced as
an alternative to time-multiplexed pilot and data symbols for mitigating pilot contamination in massive multiple-input multipleoutput (MIMO) systems. We propose a non-iterative scheme for
uplink channel estimation based on superimposed pilots and
derive an expression for the uplink signal-to-interference-plusnoise ratio (SINR) at the output of a matched filter employing
this channel estimate. Based on this expression, we observe
that power control is essential when superimposed pilots are
employed. Moreover, the quality of the channel estimate can
be improved by reducing the interference that results from
transmitting data alongside the pilots, and an intuitive iterative
data-aided scheme that reduces this component of interference is
also proposed. Approximate expressions for the uplink SINR are
provided for the iterative data-aided method as well. In addition,
we show that a hybrid system with users utilizing both timemultiplexed and superimposed pilots is superior to an optimally
designed system that employs only time-multiplexed pilots, even
when the non-iterative channel estimate is used to build the
detector and precoder. We also describe a simple approach to
implement this hybrid system by minimizing the overall inter
and intra-cell interference. Numerical simulations demonstrating
the performance of the proposed channel estimation schemes and
the superiority of the hybrid system are also provided.
Index Terms—Massive MIMO, pilot contamination, superimposed pilots.

I. I NTRODUCTION
Massive multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) systems,
proposed in [1], have received significant interest in recent
years as a candidate for fifth-generation mobile communication technologies [2]–[4]. These systems are a variation of
multi-user MIMO (MU-MIMO) and have a large number of
base station (BS) antennas that result in an improved spectral
efficiency through spatial multiplexing [5], [6]. Under favorable propagation conditions [1], significant gains in throughput
can be achieved by employing simple linear processing at the
Manuscript received June 10, 2016; revised Dec. 5, 2016; accepted Feb.
8, 2017. The associate editor coordinating the review of this manuscript and
approving it for publication was Dr. Marios Kountouris.
Copyright (c) 2017 IEEE. Personal use of this material is permitted.
However, permission to use this material for any other purposes must be
obtained from the IEEE by sending a request to pubs-permissions@ieee.org.
Part of this work has been presented at the 2016 IEEE International Conf.
Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, Shanghai, China.
This work was supported in part by the Academy of Finland research grant
No. 299243.
K. Upadhya and S. A. Vorobyov are with the Department of Signal
Processing and Acoustics, Aalto University, FI-00076 Aalto, Finland (E-mails:
karthik.upadhya@aalto.fi, svor@ieee.org).
M. Vehkapera is with the Department of Electronic and Electrical
Engineering, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, S1 3JD, UK (E-mail:
m.vehkapera@sheffield.ac.uk).

BS [7], [8]. In addition, large numbers of antennas result in
an improved uplink (UL) energy-efficiency [9] and render the
system performance resilient to hardware impairments [10].
However, all the above mentioned benefits of a massive
MIMO communication system hinge on the assumption that
the BS has access to accurate estimates of the channel state
information (CSI). For systems that employ either frequency
division duplexing (FDD) or time division duplexing (TDD),
the channel estimates are obtained using orthogonal pilot
sequences. In FDD systems, each antenna at the BS transmits
a pilot sequence that is orthogonal to the pilot sequences
transmitted by the other antennas. Since the number of orthogonal pilot sequences required becomes proportional to the
number of BS antennas, FDD is considered impractical for
channel estimation in massive MIMO [5], [11]. Moreover,
since the CSI corresponding to each antenna is estimated
by the users, it has to be fedback from the users to the
BS, consuming additional bandwidth. Consequently, massive
MIMO systems are typically assumed to employ TDD with
full frequency-reuse and utilize channel reciprocity to obtain
CSI. In these systems, each user in a cell is assigned a different
pilot sequence and these pilots are time-multiplexed with
data in each coherence block. When using time-multiplexed
pilots and data, the requirement for high spectral efficiency
necessitates sharing of pilot sequences between adjacent cells,
resulting in the channel estimates of the users in a cell being
corrupted by the channel vectors of users in the adjacent cells.
This phenomenon called ‘pilot contamination’ [12] introduces
interference in both the UL and downlink (DL), degrading the
overall performance of the system.
Existing methods to mitigate pilot contamination for massive MIMO are designed for the case wherein the pilots
are time-multiplexed with the data, henceforth referred to as
time-multiplexed pilots. In [13], it has been observed that
the eigenvectors of the autocorrelation matrix of the received
data correspond to the channel vectors of the desired and
interfering users, and a method for channel estimation has been
developed based on this observation. Pilot decontamination
has been performed in [14] by projecting the contaminated
channel estimate on an interference-free subspace spanned by
the channel vectors of the desired users, whereas [15] derives
asymptotic conditions for separability between the subspaces
of the desired and interfering users. In [16], a coordinated
method for pilot allocation has been proposed for separating
desired and interfering users in correlated channels. A pilot
decontamination method based on the array processing model
has been proposed in [17] for use in parametric channels with

2

a finite number of discrete paths. In [18], a resource allocation
approach has been proposed for optimizing the number of
users scheduled in each cell in order to minimize the effect
of pilot contamination. A common theme for the approaches
described above, except for [16] and [18], is that they focus on
decontaminating the channel estimate at the receiver, which in
this case is the BS. However, since pilot contamination results
from interfering pilot transmissions, there is a scope for better
separating the desired and interfering users by optimizing the
pilot transmissions at the user terminal as well.
In this paper, we propose using superimposed pilots as an
alternative to, and in combination with, time-multiplexed pilots
in massive MIMO systems. Methods for channel estimation
based on pilots that are embedded in data, such as superimposed pilots, have been extensively studied for MIMO systems
[19]–[24]. However, these papers have focused on embedded
and superimposed pilots in the context of accommodating a
loss in signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) in exchange for a reduced
pilot transmission overhead [20], [21]. Particularly, scenarios
with high user-mobility, wherein it is impractical to allocate
dedicated symbols for training, have been of interest for
employing superimposed pilots. In the context of multi-cell
massive MIMO, provided that the number of users in the
system is smaller than the number of symbols in the UL,
superimposed pilots allow for each user in the system to be
assigned a unique pilot sequence, enabling the receiver to
estimate the channel vectors of both the desired and interfering
users. In addition, these pilots mitigate pilot contamination
by time-averaging over long sequences and offer a higher
efficiency due to a reduced transmission overhead.
We obtain expressions for the signal-to-interference-plusnoise ratio (SINR) at the output of a matched filter (MF)based detector when a non-iterative least-squares (LS)-based
channel estimate is employed for channel estimation. Based
on the SINR expression, we highlight the need for power
control when superimposed pilots are employed in a massive
MIMO system. Moreover, we discuss the shortcomings of the
non-iterative channel estimator and propose an intuitive lowcomplexity iterative channel estimation scheme for superimposed pilots.1 In addition, we introduce the concept of a hybrid
system and show by means of theoretical arguments that the
hybrid system is superior to its counterpart that employs only
time-multiplexed pilots, even when the non-iterative channel
estimator is used to obtain the channel estimate from superimposed pilots. A simple approach to design and implement
this hybrid system is also detailed. Although the use of superimposed pilots requires some coordination between the BSs
in assigning pilot sequences to the users and estimating their
path-loss coefficients, these are minor impediments compared
to the performance improvements provided by the proposed
scheme.
The article in the existing literature that is closest to this
paper is [26], wherein superimposed pilots have been employed in the context of multi-cell multiuser MIMO systems.
1 The work in this paper is a significant extension of our relevant conference
paper [25]. In addition to a detailed exposition, we have included additional
results that demonstrate the superiority of massive MIMO systems that use
superimposed pilots instead of time-multiplexed pilots.

However, unlike [26], the focus of our paper is to demonstrate the superiority of superimposed pilots when used in
conjunction with time-multiplexed pilots in a hybrid system.
The theoretical results and simulations that have been obtained
are in line with this objective.
In Section II, the system model for the massive MIMO
UL is described. In Section III, time-multiplexed pilots are
described and the pilot contamination problem is detailed.
Section IV introduces the superimposed pilot scheme and
describes the non-iterative method for channel estimation and
Section V discusses the iterative data-aided scheme. In Section
VI, the concept of a hybrid system that employs both timemultiplexed and superimposed pilots is introduced and in
Section VII, a simple approach for implementing this hybrid
system is discussed. Section VIII presents simulation results
demonstrating the effectiveness of employing superimposed
pilots for pilot decontamination. Section IX concludes the
paper. Some of the proofs are given in Appendix.
Notation : Lower case and upper case boldface letters denote column vectors and matrices, respectively. The notations
(·)∗ , (·)T , (·)H , and (·)−1 represent the conjugate, transpose,
Hermitian transpose, and inverse, respectively. The notation
µ, Σ) stands for the complex normal distribution with
CN (µ
mean µ and covariance matrix Σ and E {·} is used to denote
the expectation operator. The notation IN denotes an N × N
identity matrix, and k·k and k·kF denote the Euclidean norm of
a vector and Frobenius norm of a matrix, respectively. Upper
case calligraphic letters denote sets, and ∅ denotes the empty
set. The notation 1{S} represents the indicator function over
the set S, whereas Card (S) is used to represent its cardinality.
The notation δn,m denotes the Kronecker delta function, and
η(·) stands for an element-by-element decision function that
replaces each element of the input vector with the constellation
point that is closest in Euclidean distance to that element. The
big O notation f (x) = O(g(x)) implies that |f (x)|/|g(x)| is
bounded as x → ∞.
II. S YSTEM M ODEL
We consider a TDD massive MIMO UL with L cells and
K single-antenna2 users per cell. Each cell has a BS with
M  K antennas. The number of symbols C, over which
the channel is coherent, is assumed to be divided into Cu
and Cd , which are the number of symbols in the UL and DL
time slots, respectively. The matrix of received measurements
Yj ∈ CM ×Cu at BS j can be written as
Yj =

L−1
X K−1
X

√

µ`,k hj,`,k sT`,k + Wj

(1)

`=0 k=0

where µ`,k denotes the power with which the vector of
symbols s`,k ∈ CCu ×1 are transmitted by user k in cell `,
Wj ∈ CM ×Cu is the additive white Gaussian noise at BS
j with each column distributed as CN (0, σ 2 IM ). Moreover,
the columns of Wj are mutually independent of each other.
The vector hj,`,k ∈ CM ×1 represents the channel response
2 For training and channel estimation, users with T > 1 antennas can be
treated as T separate single-antenna users.

3

between the antennas at BS j, and user k in cell `, and is
assumed to be distributed as3
hj,`,k ∼ CN (0, βj,`,k IM )

the LS estimate of the channel of user m in cell j can be
obtained as [1]
L−1

(2)

where βj,`,k denotes the large-scale path-loss coefficient which
depends on the user location in the cell. In addition, the
channel vectors hj,`,k are assumed to be mutually independent
of each other ∀j, `, k. The aforementioned statistics of the
channel vector correspond to the non-line-of-sight scenario
with rich scattering [1]. By virtue of their zero mean and
mutual independence, the channel vectors are asymptotically
orthogonal and the following equation holds almost surely [1]
hH
j,`,k hm,n,p
= βj,`,k δj,m δ`,n δk,p , ∀ j, k, `, m, n, p .
M →∞
M
(3)
Moreover, hj,`,k is assumed to be constant for the duration
of C symbols, and βj,`,k is constant for a significantly longer
duration which depends on the user mobility. For the sake of
simplicity, the effects of shadowing are not taken into account
in this paper.4 The transmitted symbols s`,k contain both
pilots and data. The pilots could either be time-multiplexed
or superimposed pilots, and the elements of the data vector
x`,k are assumed to be independent and identically distributed
(i.i.d) random variables with zero-mean and unit variance and
take values from an alphabet χ, which is a realistic assumption.
lim

III. T IME -M ULTIPLEXED P ILOTS A ND T HE P ILOT
C ONTAMINATION P ROBLEM
With time-multiplexed pilots, each user in a cell transmits a
τ ≥ K length orthogonal pilot sequence for channel estimation
followed by Cu − τ symbols of uplink data. In order to
minimize the overhead incurred, it is necessary to reuse these
pilot sequences in the adjacent cells. However, this pilot-reuse
results in the channel estimates of the desired users being
contaminated by the channel vectors of users in adjacent cells,
causing interference and in turn, a loss in spectral efficiency.
It is assumed here that the transmission of the pilot sequences by the users in the L cells are synchronized, which
corresponds to the worst-case scenario for pilot contamination.5 Consider a unitary matrix Φ ∈ Cτ ×τ whose columns
φ1 , . . . , φ τ } are the orthogonal pilot sequences that are
{φ
transmitted by the users, i.e., φ H
n φ p = τ δn,p . If φ b`,k is
the pilot sequence transmitted by user k of cell `, where
b`,k ∈ {1, . . . , τ } is the index of the transmitted pilot, and if
each pilot sequence is reused once every r , τ /K cells [18],
3 While, for the sake of simplicity, an environment with rich scattering is
assumed, the conclusions made in this paper are independent of the channel
distribution and only require the channel vectors of any pair of users to be
asymptotically orthogonal.
4 The algorithms and analysis in this paper remain the same in the presence
of shadowing, provided that the users are allocated to the strongest BSs.
However, the geometric interpretations that are made based on the location
of the user in the cell will no longer be valid.
5 No additional improvement in the UL performance can be gleaned by
separating the pilot and data transmissions across cells [1], [9], [18].

X
1
(p)
b TP , √1 Y(p)φ ∗ = hj,j,m +
h
hj,`,m + √ Wj φ ∗bj,m
bj,m
j,j,m
j
τ pu
τ pu
`=0
`6=j
`∈Lj (r)

(4)
where the superscript TP indicates that the estimates are computed when using time-multiplexed pilots, the superscript p
indicates that the observations are made during pilot transmission, and Lj (r) is the subset of the L cells that use the same set
of pilots as cell j. In addition, it is assumed in (4) without loss
of generality that the transmit powers are same for all users
employing time-multiplexed pilots, i.e., µ`,k = pu , ∀`, k, and
any variation in the transmit power of an individual user is
absorbed into the corresponding path-loss coefficient β. It can
be observed from (4) that the estimates of the channel vectors
of the users in cell j are contaminated by the channel vectors
of the users in the remaining Card (Lj (r) − 1) cells. When
M → ∞, the UL SINR of user m in cell j, at the output of
an MF that uses the channel estimate in (4) for detection, can
be written as [1]
SINRTP−ul
=
j,m

β2
P j,j,m2
.
βj,`,m

(5)

`6=j
`∈Lj (r)

The corresponding throughput of the user using Gaussian
signaling in the UL can then be expressed as [1]


(Cu − τ )
TP−ul
TP−ul
Rj,m
=
log2 1 + SINRj,m
.
(6)
C
From the above equation, it can be observed that the rate per
user is a function of both the overhead τ as well as the loss in
SINR due to pilot contamination. A larger value of r would
reduce the effect of pilot contamination and increase the SINR
at the cost of a reduced transmission efficiency (Cu − τ )/C.
IV. S UPERIMPOSED P ILOTS
With superimposed pilots, the pilot symbols are transmitted
at a reduced power alongside the data symbols, and in its
simplest version, the pilot and data symbols are transmitted
alongside each other for the entire duration of the uplink data
slot Cu . If the total number of users in the system is smaller
than the number of symbols in the uplink, i.e., KL ≤ Cu ,6
then with superimposed pilots, each user can be assigned a
unique orthogonal pilot p`,k ∈ CCu ×1 . The pilots are taken
from the columns of a unitary matrix P ∈ CCu ×Cu such
that PH P = Cu ICu , and therefore pH
`,k pn,p = Cu δ`,n δk,p .
If ρ`,k x`,k + λ`,k p`,k is the transmitted vector from user k in
6 For example, using the orthogonal frequency division multiplexing
(OFDM) parameters in long-term evolution (LTE) systems as in [1], i.e.,
Cu = 7 OFDM symbols, Nsmooth = 14 subcarriers, and assuming the pilots
are reused over L = 7 hexagonal cells, the maximum number of supported
users in the L cells is Cu Nsmooth = 98 users. Therefore, the number of
users per cell is Cu Nsmooth /L = 14 users. However, note that the value of
Cu = 7 has been chosen to allow user velocities of 350 km/h [27]. For lower
user speeds and with cell sectoring, larger number users can be supported and
the assumption KL ≤ Cu will easily be satisfied.

4


SINRSP−ul
=
j,m

2

ρ2`,k µ`,k βj,`,k

2

Cu λ2j,m ρ2j,m βj,j,m
`=0 k=0

+

1 

M

L−1
X K−1
X

`=0 k=0
{`6=j,k6=m}

cell `, then the received signal at the j’th BS Yj ∈ CM ×Cu ,
when using the superimposed pilot scheme, can be written as
Yj =

L−1
X K−1
X

T

hj,`,k (ρ`,k x`,k + λ`,k p`,k ) + Wj

(7)

`=0 k=0

where λ2`,k and ρ2`,k are the fractions of the transmit power
reserved for the pilot and data symbols, respectively, and the
total transmitted power µ`,k is given as µ`,k = λ2`,k + ρ2`,k .
A. Non-Iterative Channel Estimation
Treating the data symbols of all users as additive noise, the
channel estimate of user k in cell ` can be obtained at the j’th
BS using the LS criterion [26]
b j,`,k , arg minkYj − λ`,k h pT k2 .
h
`,k F

(8)

h

Solving (8) yields
b j,`,k = Yj λ2 pH p`,k
h
`,k `,k
= hj,`,k +
+

−1


L−1
X K−1
X

−1

λ`,k p∗`,k =

1
Yj p∗`,k
Cu λ`,k

L−1
X K−1
X
1
ρm,n hj,m,n xTm,n p∗`,k
Cu λ`,k m=0 n=0

1
Wj p∗`,k .
Cu λ`,k

(9)

In order to estimate the data from the received observations, it
is necessary to remove the term corresponding to the transmitted superimposed pilot λj,m hj,j,m pTj,m from the observation
b j,j,m pT as an estimate for this
vector in (7). Using λj,m h
j,m
term, the estimate of xj,m can then be obtained from the
observation Yj using an MF and a decision operation as
follows


1
T
bH
b
eTj,j,m =
h
(10)
x
j,j,m Yj − λj,m hj,j,m pj,m
M ρj,m βj,j,m
bj,j,m = η (e
x
xj,j,m ) .
(11)
The SINR of user m in cell j, at the output of an MF that
employs the channel estimate in (9), is derived in Appendix A
and is given in (12) (shown at the top of the page). The SINR
in (12), when M → ∞, can be written as
SINRSP−ul
=
j,m
1
Cu

2
λ2j,m ρ2j,m βj,j,m
.
L−1
P K−1
P 2
2
ρ`,k µ`,k βj,`,k

(13)

`=0 k=0

The corresponding per-user rate in the uplink when using
Gaussian signaling is given as


Cu
SP−ul
Rj,m
=
log2 1 + SINRSP−ul
.
(14)
j,m
C

βj,`,k µ`,k
+
ρ2j,m βj,j,m

L−1
X K−1
X

L−1
X K−1
X

ρ2n,p βj,`,k βj,n,p µ`,k 

2

Cu λ2j,m ρ2j,m βj,j,m
`=0 k=0 n=0 p=0
{`6=j,k6=m} {n6=`,p6=k}

(12)

B. Power Control and Choice of Parameters λj,m and ρj,m
From (13), it can be seen that the SINR of a user is
dependent on the product of the transmit powers and largescale fading coefficients of the remaining LK − 1 users in
addition to the product of its own transmit power and largescale fading coefficient. This dependence results in a situation
similar to the near-far problem in code division multiple access
(CDMA) systems, wherein users that have larger values of
large-scale fading coefficient β swamp users that have smaller
values of β. Therefore, it becomes necessary to use power
control to provide a uniform user experience.
While the parameters µ`,k , ρ`,k , and λ`,k can be optimized
by maximizing the sum-rate of all the users, i.e.,
(L−1 K−1
)
XX
SP−ul
max
R`,k
(15)
µ`,k ,ρ`,k ,λ`,k

`=0 k=0

the optimization problem is in general non-convex and requires
coordination between the BSs. As an alternative, a suboptimal
solution that does not involve coordination between the BSs
is obtained here for the parameters µ`,k , ρ`,k , and λ`,k . This
suboptimal solution will be shown to maximize a lower bound
on the sum-rate, and it is as follows.
The received signal in (7) can be equivalently written as


L−1
X K−1
X√
ρ`,k T
λ`,k T
µ`,k hj,`,k √
x`,k + √
p`,k +Wj
Yj =
µ`,k
µ`,k
=

`=0 k=0
L−1
X K−1
X

h̄j,`,k ρ̄`,k x`,k + λ̄`,k p`,k

T

+ Wj

(16)



(17)

`=0 k=0

where
h̄j,`,k ,

√

µ`,k hj,`,k ∼ CN 0, β̄j,`,k IM

β̄j,`,k , βj,`,k . µ`,k
s
ρ2`,k
ρ̄`,k ,
>0
µ`,k
s
λ2`,k
λ̄`,k ,
>0
µ`,k

(18)

λ̄2`,k + ρ̄2`,k = 1 .

(21)

(19)
(20)

From (16), it can be seen that a system having arbitrary
values of βj,`,k , µ`,k , ρ`,k , and λ`,k , can be reduced into an
equivalent system with parameters β̄j,`,k , ρ̄`,k , and λ̄`,k , such
that 0 ≤ ρ̄`,k , λ̄`,k ≤ 1. Substituting (18) – (21) into (12), an
equivalent expression for the SINR, as shown in (22) (shown
at the top of the next page) can be obtained.
To obtain the parameter µ`,k , we propose using the
statistics-aware power-control approach detailed in [18],
wherein user m in cell j transmits at a power µj,m = ω/βj,j,m

5


2

ρ̄2`,k β̄j,`,k

SINRSP−ul
=
j,m

C λ̄2 ρ̄2 β̄ 2
`=0 k=0 u j,m j,m j,j,m

+

1 

M

L−1
X K−1
X

`=0 k=0
{`6=j,k6=m}

β̄j,`,k
+
ρ̄2j,m β̄j,j,m

L−1
X K−1
X

L−1
X K−1
X


SINRSP−ul
≥
j,m


ρ̄2`,k

Cu λ̄2j,m ρ̄2j,m
`=0 k=0

+

LK − 1
+
M ρ̄2j,m

L−1
X K−1
X

`=0 k=0 m=0 n=0
{`6=j,k6=m} {m6=`,n6=k}

where ω is a design parameter. The parameter ω is chosen such
that the transmitted power from a user satisfies a maximum
power constraint, and users with severely low SINRs that
would need a transmit power larger than this constraint would
be denied service. This power control policy results in an
identical received power of ω at the j’th BS for all the
users in cell j. In addition, as mentioned in [18], the ratio
0 ≤ βj,`,k /β`,`,k ≤ 1 is the relative strength of the interference
received at BS j from a user in cell `. This ratio is at most
1, when the user is at the edge of the j’th cell, and reduces
to zero as its distance from BS j increases. Therefore, setting
µ`,k = ω/β`,`,k and using the definitions of β̄j,`,k , ρ̄`,k , and
λ̄`,k , and the inequality 0 ≤ βj,`,k /β`,`,k ≤ 1, the following
equations can be obtained
β̄j,j,m = βj,j,m . µj,m = ω

(23)

= βj,`,k . µ`,k ≤ β`,`,k µ`,k = ω
=
=
≤

≤

ρ̄2j,m ω
λ̄2j,m ω
ρ2`,k β`,`,k
λ2`,k β`,`,k

∀ ` 6= j

(24)
(25)
(26)

= ρ̄2`,k ω
=

λ̄2`,k ω

∀ ` 6= j

∀ ` 6= j .

L−1
X K−1
X

(27)
(28)

Substituting the above equations into (22), a lower bound on
the SINR, as shown in (29) (shown at the top of the page),
can be obtained.
However, the maximization of the lower bound on the
SINR and hence, a lower bound on the sum rate, is still
a non-convex problem in the parameters ρ̄`,k and λ̄`,k and
requires coordination between the BSs. To circumvent this
problem, we restrict the parameters ρ̄`,k and λ̄`,k such that
ρ̄`,k = ρ̄, ∀ `, k and λ̄`,k = λ̄, ∀ `, k. The choice of this
restriction is motivated by the observation from (23) that
the statistics-aware power control scheme results in the same
large-scale path loss coefficient for all the desired users in the
cell, irrespective of their locations. As a result, from the BS’s
perspective, each of its users are identical, and therefore, there
is no benefit in assigning different values of ρ̄`,k to different
users. More importantly, such a restriction renders the choice
of ρ̄opt to depend only on L, K, Cu , and M as will be shown
next. Setting ρ̄`,k = ρ̄, ∀ `, k and λ̄`,k = λ̄, ∀ `, k in (29), we
obtain
!!
2 −1
1 LK − 1 (LK − 1)
LK
SP−ul
+
+
.
SINRj,m ≥
Cu (1 − ρ̄2 ) M
ρ̄2
Cu (1 − ρ̄2 )
(30)

L−1
X K−1
X

`=0 k=0 m=0 n=0
{`6=j,k6=m} {m6=`,n6=k}

ρ̄2m,n β̄j,`,k β̄j,m,n 

2

Cu λ̄2j,m ρ̄2j,m β̄j,j,m

(22)

−1



β̄j,`,k
2
ρj,m βj,j,m
λ2j,m βj,j,m
ρ2`,k βj,`,k
λ2`,k βj,`,k

−1



L−1
X K−1
X


ρ̄2m,n

2
2
M Cu λ̄j,m ρ̄j,m 

(29)

Differentiating the right hand side of (30) with respect to ρ̄2
and setting the resulting expression to zero, the value of ρ̄2
that maximizes the lower bound on SINRSP−ul
and the UL
j,m
sum rate can be obtained as

 v
!−1
u LK (LK−1)2 −1
r
u
M + LK
 t Cu + M C u 
2
(31)
ρ̄opt=1+
 ≈ 1+
LK−1
Cu
M
and the optimal value of λ̄2 can be obtained as
!−1
r
Cu
2
2
λ̄opt = 1 − ρ̄opt ≈ 1 +
M + LK

(32)

where the approximations in (31) and (32) have been made
assuming LK  1 in order to obtain simpler expressions.
Based on the fact established in this subsection that systems using ρ, λ, β, h, and ρ̄, λ̄, β̄, h̄ are equivalent, we drop
the overbar for ease of notation and adopt the former set
of symbols in the rest of the paper. In addition, we set
µ`,k = ρ̄2`,k + λ̄2`,k = 1, ∀`, k.
C. Impact of Cu on the Performance of Superimposed Pilots
Using (13) and a fixed set of parameters r, τ , and K,
the following theorem presents an important condition that
guarantees the superiority of methods based on superimposed
pilots over the LS estimator that is based on time-multiplexed
pilots.
Theorem 1. With fixed values of K, r, and τ and if M → ∞,
there exists a UL duration κj,m beyond which a channel
estimator based on superimposed pilots outperforms the LS
based channel estimator that utilizes time-multiplexed pilots,
in terms of the SINR performance, in any channel scenario
{βj,`,m 0 ≤ j, ` ≤ L − 1, 0 ≤ m ≤ K − 1}.
Proof. If κj,m is defined as the number of symbols in the
uplink such that (5) and (13) are equal, i.e.,

1
κj,m λ2j,m ρ2j,m

2
βj,j,m
L−1
P K−1
P
`=0 k=0

=
2
ρ2`,k βj,`,k

β2
P j,j,m2
βj,`,m

(33)

`6=j
`∈Lj (r)

then it is evident from (13) and (33) that Cu > κj,m is a
sufficient condition for a method that is based on superim-

6

posed pilots to outperform the LS method that employs timemultiplexed pilots. In addition, κj,m is given as
1

κj,m ,

L−1
P K−1
P

2
ρ2`,k βj,`,k
`=0 k=0
P
2
βj,`,m
`6=j
`∈Lj (r)

λ2j,m ρ2j,m

.

(34)

This completes the proof.
Remark 1: An important consequence of the above theorem is that in scenarios with negligible pilot contamination, the LS method based on superimposed pilots requires
a large value of Cu to outperform the LS method based
on time-multiplexed pilots. As an example, consider the
case when r = 1, βj,j,m = 1, ∀m, βj,`,m = β, ∀` 6= j, m, and
ρ2j,m = λ2j,m , ∀ j, m. For such a scenario, κj,m is given as


1
.
(35)
κj,m = 2K 1 +
(L − 1)β 2

Then, if the LS estimator based on superimposed pilots is
required to maintain superiority over the LS estimator employing time-multiplexed pilots, Cu must scale inversely with
β 2 . This dependence on Cu is evident from the expression for
the channel estimation error, which is given as
b j,j,m = − 1
∆hj,j,m , hj,j,m − h
Cu λj,m
!
L−1
K−1
XX
T
×
ρ`,k hj,`,k x`,k + Wj p∗j,m . (36)
`=0 k=0

Remark 2: We build upon the discussion in [1] on grouping
users based on their coherence times. While such a grouping
does not offer any performance benefits to users when employing the approach in [1], the use of superimposed pilots offers
low-mobility users an increase in throughput, by minimizing
the channel estimation error resulting from transmitting the
data alongside the pilots. This improvement in performance is
a direct consequence of Theorem 1.
Remark 3: The type of pilot transmitted by a user can also be
chosen based on the coherence time. While users with highmobility or low pilot contamination would find it sufficient
to use time-multiplexed pilots, users with low-mobility who
suffer from significant pilot contamination due to their proximity to the cell-edge or due to shadowing would significantly
benefit from employing superimposed pilots.
Remark 4: Superimposed pilots require coordination between
BSs when assigning pilot sequences and synchronizing transmissions. In practical cellular networks, the cells are fairly
large and therefore, it can be assumed that the interference is
restricted to the first tier of cells and the interference from the
second and higher tiers of cells can be neglected. Therefore,
it is reasonable to assume that practical deployments of
superimposed pilots will require pilot assignment only over
the first tier of cells, implying that coordination is limited to
only this first tier. This overhead is not very different from that
required by time-multiplexed pilots in the presence of pilot
reuse. The coordination and synchronization requirements of
superimposed pilot-based systems that allocate pilots over the

first tier of cells are similar to that of time-multiplexed pilotbased systems that have a pilot reuse factor of r = 3 [18].
From (36), it can be seen that the error in the channel
estimate includes interference resulting from transmitting data
alongside the pilots. Hence, the quality of the channel estimate
can be improved by eliminating the interference from the
transmitted data through iterative data-aided schemes, thereby
increasing the robustness of the proposed method with respect
to Cu .
V. I TERATIVE DATA -A IDED C HANNEL E STIMATION
In the iterative approach to channel estimation developed in
this section, the estimated channel and data vectors of both the
desired and interfering users are used in feedback in order to
eliminate the first term in (36). In addition, to minimize error
propagation between the channel estimates of different users,
the iteration is started from the user with the highest SINR
and is progressed in the decreasing order of the SINRs of the
users. It has to be noted that the objective of this section is
to demonstrate that iterative methods for channel estimation
with superimposed pilots provide a significantly better SINR
performance than their non-iterative counterparts, and hence
we restrict ourselves to a simple iterative algorithm. However,
there is scope for developing improved iterative algorithms in
the future.
A. Algorithm
For the sake of clarity and without loss of generality, we
replace the two indices k, ` with a single index m that lies in
the range 0 ≤ m ≤ N − 1, where N , KL. The index m is
used to index the users in all the L cells. In addition, we drop
the index j and implicitly assume that the channel estimation
is performed at the j’th BS. Then, (7) can be rewritten as
Y=

N
−1
X

T

hm (ρm xm + λm pm ) + W .

(37)

m=0

Since for large M , the SINRs of the users are proportional to the users’ path-loss coefficients, the users are arranged in the decreasing order of their path-loss coefficients,
i.e., β0 > β1 > . . . > βN −1 .7 Then, using an estimate of
ρm hm xTm p∗m for each user as a correction factor to minimize
the interference from other users, the corresponding channel
estimate of user m can be written as

b (i) =
h
m

m−1

T
X
1 
(i)
b (i) x
Y −
b
ρ
h
k
k
k
Cu λm 
k=0
(i)
k∈Um


−

N
−1
X
k=m
(i)
k∈Um


T 
(i−1)
b (i−1) x
 p∗m
b
ρk h
k
k


(38)

7 It is assumed that the BSs have access to the exact values of the pathloss coefficients βm and that there is no false-ordering. This assumption is
reasonable since for large M , the path-loss coefficients can be computed at the
BS with negligible error by averaging the power of the channel coefficients
over the entire array.

7

(0)

(i)

(i)

(p)

b m = 0, ∀ m and Um is the set of users whose (S3) ∆xm is independent of ∆x , ∀p 6= i, m 6= k and the
where h
k
(i)
estimated data is used in feedback in the i’th iteration to
elements of ∆xm are i.i.d.
(p)
estimate the channel vector of user m. The approach to obtain (S4) ∆h(i)
m is independent of xk , W, and ∆xk , ∀ k, p.
(i)
Um has been detailed in Appendix C, and involves selecting
In scenarios with low interference and with large M , only
users such that the interference power, described in the next
a few of the received symbols will be erroneous. As a
subsection, does not increase with each iteration. The channel
(i)
result, the elements of ∆xm are sparse with the few nonestimate in the above equation is a modified version of the
zero elements restricted to locations that correspond to the
LS estimator defined in (9) with an added correction factor.
(i)
erroneous symbols. Moreover, the vector em represents the
Utilizing the resulting channel estimate in an MF and decision
error in the estimated data and in such low-interference
operation, similar to (10) and (11), the estimate of the data is
(i)
scenarios, the elements of em take small values. Therefore, the
obtained as follows
simplifications (S1), (S2), and (S3) are reasonably accurate for

H 

T

1
(i)
(i) T
(i)
(i)
b
b
em
(39) these scenarios. Although the expression for ∆hm , (given in
Y − λm hm pm
hm
x
=
(i)
M ρ m βm
(82) in Appendix B) is explicitly dependent on xk and ∆xm ,


(i)
(i)
bm = η x
em
(40) we neglect the correlation between these terms since ∆h(i)
x
m
is inversely proportional to Cu , and the simplification (S4) is
(0)
bm = 0, ∀ m = 0, . . . , N − 1.
where x
fairly accurate when Cu is large with respect to N and when
(i)
Remark 5: If the unitary matrix P, whose columns are the su- scenarios with low interference are considered. Since em is
(i)
perimposed pilots, is chosen as P = blkdiag{P0 , . . . , PL−1 }, assumed to be a zero-mean random variable, ∆xk is also a
where the `’th block P` ∈ CK×K is comprised of the orthog- zero-mean random variable, provided the constellation points
onal pilot sequences used by the K users in cell `, then the in χ and their probability density functions are symmetric
(i)
latency introduced when the non-iterative method is employed about the origin. This is true since by definition, ∆xk and
(i)
is the same as that for time-multiplexed pilots. However, when em are related to each other through the following equation
the iterative method is employed, the channel and the data


(i)
vectors of the users are required and therefore, the uplink data
∆xk = xk − η xk − e(i)
.
(43)
m
in the entire slot will have to be aggregated before estimating
the channel, which introduces a latency of Cu symbols.
From (43), an expression for the variance of the elements of
(i)
Remark 6: From (9), the non-iterative method for channel ∆x(i)
k , i.e., αk can be found as
estimation requires M Cu operations per user, whereas the MF
h
i 2 Z
and decision operations in (10) and (11) require M and Cu
(i)
(i)
2
αk , E
∆xk
= |∆x| p∆x(i) (∆x)d∆x
operations per user, respectively.
k
n
Z Z
For the iterative method with ν iterations, the channel esti2
=
|x − η (x − e)| pe(i) ,x (e, x) de dx
mator, matched filter, and decision operations have a combined
k
k
x∈χ
complexity of O(νM Cu ) + O(νM ) + O(νCu ).
Z Z
B. Interference Power at the BS
(i)

k=0
k6=m

(i)

where the expression for ψm is given in (42) on the top of
(0)
the next page and ψm = 0, ∀m. The detailed derivation of
(i)
Im can be found in Appendix B.
In deriving (41), the following simplifying assumptions have
been made in order to obtain a closed form expression:
(i)
(S1) em is independent of xk and W, ∀ k, i.
(i)
(S2) ∆xm is independent of xk , W, and hk , ∀ k, i.

|x − η (x − e)| pe(i) (e) pxk (x) de dx

(44)

k

x∈χ

(i)

em be the error in the estimate of the data
Let em , xm − x
symbols of user m obtained from the MF in the i’th iteration.
(i)
(i)
bm be the corresponding error vector
Let ∆xm , xm − x
(i)
(i)
bm
after the decision operation and let ∆hm , hm − h
be the
(i)
associated error in the channel estimate. If αn is the variance
(i)
of the elements of ∆xn and assuming that the elements of
(i)
em are i.i.d. circular complex-Gaussian random variables with
(i)
zero mean and variance Im , an approximate expression for the
(i)
interference power Im can be written as


N
−1
2
X
1 1
σ βm
1
(i)
(i)
Im
≈ 2 2
βk βm +
+ 2 2 ψm
 (41)
βm M ρ m
M ρ2m
M ρm

2

=

where pe(i) (·), p∆x(i) (·), and pxk (·) are the probability density
k

k

(i)

(i)

functions of the elements of ek , ∆xk , and xk , respectively,
and pe(i) ,x (·) is the joint density function of the random
k

k

(i)

variables ek and xk . The latter has been written as the product
of their individual distributions in the final expression of (44),
thanks to (S1).
(i)
Important example of αm : When the elements of xm are
uniformly distributed and take values from a unit-power P quarternary amplitude modulation (QAM) constellation, then
(i)
under the assumption that the symbol errors in ∆xk are
dominated by the closest neighboring symbols, the expression
(i)
for αm can be written as
!

r
3

(P
−1)
√ √
24
, i≥1
Q
(i)
(i)
P ( P +1)
Im
(45)
αm
=


1,
i=0
where Q (·) is the Q-function. The detailed derivation of the
above expression can be found in Appendix D.

8

2

i≥1

X
(i)

k∈Um ,m≤k≤N




τ

X

(i)
ρ2k βk2 αk


UTP
Uplink Data

Pilots

1
+
M

N
−1
X



(i)
βn βk αk

Cd

Downlink Data

Cu
τ

No
Transmission

(i)






)
N
−1
X
1
ρ2k βk2 +
+
+
βn βk
2
M
M n=0
(i)
(i)
n=0
k∈Um ,k<m
k∈U
/ m




!
(i−1)
−1
N
−1

 σ 2 NX
1 + αk
X
1
(i−1)
(i−1)
(i−1)
ψk
+
(42)
ρ2k βk2 αk
+
βn βk αk
+
βn  .
2

 M
M
M
n=0
n=0

M 
=
Cu λ2m

(i)
ψm

+



USP
Uplink Data
+
Superimposed Pilots

Cd

Downlink Data

1 + αk

(

(i)
ψk


X

data phase of Cu − τ symbols. Since these users maintain
radio silence during the pilot training phase of τ symbols,
they do not affect the quality of the channel estimates of the
users in UTP . As a result, under the assumption of asymptotic
orthogonality of the channels, there is no interference from the
users in USP to those in UTP . Therefore, the per-cell sum-rate
in the UL for the users in UTP remains unchanged and can
be found from (6) to be


Rul
j (UTP ) =

K−1

(Cu − τ ) X

log2 1 +
C

k=0
k∈UTP

Cu

Fig. 1. Frame structure of a hybrid system with users employing timemultiplexed and superimposed pilots.

VI. H YBRID S YSTEM
One of the main advantages of superimposed pilots over
time-multiplexed pilots is that it does not require a separate
set of symbols for pilot transmission. This property can be
used to construct a hybrid system that contains two disjoint
sets of users, with the users in one of the sets employing timemultiplexed pilots, and the users in the other set employing
superimposed pilots. The following theorem shows that this
hybrid system has a higher throughput and supports a larger
number of users than a system that employs only timemultiplexed pilots.
Theorem 2. In a system that employs time-multiplexed pilots
and is designed to maximize the UL and DL sum-rate,8 let
K be the optimal number of users per cell, L be the total
number of cells in the system, τ > 0 be the optimal number
of symbols used for pilot training, r be the optimal pilot-reuse
factor, and Cu − τ and Cd be the number of data symbols in
the UL and DL slots, respectively. Then, with M → ∞, there
exists a hybrid system, that uses both time-multiplexed and
superimposed pilots, which is capable of supporting Cu − τ
additional users and offers a higher sum-rate in the UL than
the optimal system that only employs time-multiplexed pilots.
Proof. Consider the frame structure in Fig. 1, wherein there
are two sets of users UTP and USP . The users in the set
UTP employ time-multiplexed pilots, with parameters selected
using approaches such as in [18]. The users in the set USP
maintain radio silence during the pilot training phase of the
users in UTP , i.e., for τ symbols in the frame, and transmit
orthogonal pilots superimposed with data during the uplink
8 Such

as the scheme described in [18].


β2
P j,j,k2 
 .
βj,`,k 

`6=j
`∈Lj (r)

(46)
Assuming, for the sake of simplicity, that all the users in USP
are located in the j’th cell, the sum-rate of the users in USP
can be found using (13) and (14) as
(Cu − τ ) X
log2 (1 + SINRm (USP )) (47)
Rul
j (USP ) =
C
SINRm (USP ) ,

P

m∈USP
2
βj,j,m
2
ρ2j,k βj,j,k
(Cu −τ )ρ2j,m λ2j,m

.

(48)

k∈USP

In obtaining the above expression, it has been assumed that
the transmit power pu of the users in UTP is small enough
such that the interference to the users in USP can be neglected.9 Therefore, from (46) and (48), the combined rate
ul
ul
Rul
j (USP ) + Rj (UTP ) is strictly greater than Rj (UTP ). In
addition, since the data slot is made up of Cu − τ symbols, it
is possible to allocate Cu − τ orthogonal pilots and therefore,
the set USP can contain a maximum of Cu − τ users. This
concludes the proof.
In the above theorem, given a system with users employing
time-multiplexed pilots, we have shown that additional users
employing superimposed pilots can always be added to the
system, resulting in a hybrid system that offers a higher
throughput.
In the following section, we utilize the concept of the
above theorem to partition a given set of users employing
time-multiplexed pilots into two disjoint subsets UTP and
USP that contain users transmitting time-multiplexed pilots
and superimposed pilots, respectively. There are two main
benefits of performing such a partition: (i) there is an overall
9 This assumption is valid since the SINR and the rate of the users in U
TP
are independent of the transmit power pu when M → ∞. It has to be noted
that this assumption has been made for the sake of simplicity and the theorem
is valid even if this assumption does not hold.

9

improvement in the throughput as a result of the reduced intercell interference; and (ii) there is a reduction in the number
of users that use time-multiplexed pilots, thereby allowing for
more aggressive pilot reuse since r is a function of the number
of users employing time-multiplexed pilots [18].

`=0 k=0
(`,k)∈USP

VII. A S IMPLE I MPLEMENTATION OF THE H YBRID
S YSTEM
Given a set of K users per cell in L cells with channel
gains βj,`,k , ∀j, ` = 1, . . . , L, and k = 1, . . . , K, the problem
of partitioning users into disjoint sets UTP and USP can be
accomplished by minimizing the overall UL inter-cell and
intra-cell interference. This choice of objective function is
motivated by Theorem 1, wherein it is observed that users at
the cell edge cause significant pilot contamination and benefit
from being assigned superimposed pilots, whereas users that
are close to the BS cause negligible interference and could
be assigned time-multiplexed pilots that are potentially shared
with users in neighboring cells.
A. Framework
If the users in UTP transmit pilots with unit power and data
at a power pu , then the received signal from the hybrid system
in the UL phase at BS j can be written as
Yj =

YjTP

+

YjSP

+ Wj

(49)

where YjTP and YjSP are the received signals from the users
in UTP and USP , respectively. From Fig. 1, YjTP and YjSP
can be written as
YjTP ,

L−1
X K−1
X



√
hj,`,k φ T`,k , pu xT`,k

(50)

`=0 k=0
(`,k)∈UTP

YjSP

,

L−1
X
X K−1



hj,`,k 01×τ , ρxT`,k + λpT`,k

(51)

`=0 k=0
(`,k)∈USP

where the tuple (`, k) is used to denote user k in cell `.
If user (j, m) is a member of UTP , then the LS estimate of
its channel can be written as [1]
X
1
b j,j,m = 1 Yj bTP = hj,j,m +
h
hj,`,m + Wj bTP
j,m
j,m (52)
τ
τ
`6=j
`∈Lj (r)
(`,m)∈UTP

 H
T
where bTP
. If M  K, the SINR
j,m , φ j,m , 0(1×(Cu −τ ))
in the UL when using the channel estimate in (52) can be
obtained similar to (5) as
SINRTP−ul
j,m

2
βj,j,m
≈ P 2
βj,`,m

If user (j, m) is a member of USP , then the LS estimate of
its channel can be written as
1
b j,j,m =
Yj bSP
h
j,m
(Cu − τ ) λ
L−1
X K−1
X
ρ
= hj,j,m +
hj,`,k xT`,k p∗j,m
(Cu − τ ) λ

(53)

`6=j
`∈Lj (r)
(`,m)∈UTP

where the approximations in (53) is made for the sake of
simplicity and is valid when M is sufficiently large.

+

√

pu

L−1
X K−1
X
`=0 k=0
(`,k)∈UTP

hj,`,k xT`,k p∗j,m
+ Wj bSP
j,m
(Cu − τ ) λ

(54)

T

H
. Since it can be seen from
where bSP
j,m , 0(1×τ ) , pj,m
(53) that the UL SINR of the users in UTP is independent
of the UL transmit power pu , we assume that pu is small
enough with respect to the transmit powers of the users in
USP . As a result, the users in USP do not experience significant
interference during the data transmission phase of the users in
UTP and result in the transmissions of USP and UTP becoming
independent of each other.10 Then (54) simplifies as
L−1
X hj,`,k xT`,k p∗j,m
X K−1
b j,j,m ≈ hj,j,m + ρ
+ Wj bSP
h
j,m .
λ
(Cu − τ )
`=0 k=0
(`,k)∈USP

(55)
Then the SINR in the UL for the users in USP can be obtained
from (13) as
SP−ul
≈
SINRj,m

2
βj,j,m
L−1
P K−1
P

1
(Cu −τ )λ2

`=0 k=0
(`,k)∈USP

(56)
2
βj,`,k

where, similar to (53), the approximation in (56) is made for
the sake of simplicity and is valid when M is sufficiently large.
B. Algorithm to Obtain UTP and USP .
The goal in this subsection is to obtain an algorithm for
partitioning users into the sets UTP and USP by minimizing
the total UL inter-cell and intra-cell interference. In order to
accomplish this, we quantify the amount of interference caused
by a user that is assigned to either of the sets UTP or USP .
TP−ul
SP−ul
Let Ij,m
or Ij,m
be the contributions of user (j, m) to
the total UL inter/intra-cell interference power when assigned
to UTP or USP , respectively. If users (j, m) and (`, k) are
members of UTP , then from the denominator of (53), the
amount of interference that user (j, m) causes to user (`, k)
2
in the UL is β`,j,k
δm,k . Likewise, from (56), if both users are
members of USP , then the amount of interference that user

2
(j, m) causes to user (`, k) in the UL is β`,j,m
/ (Cu − τ ) λ2 .
TP−ul
SP−ul
Therefore, Ij,m
and Ij,m
can be obtained as
X K−1
X
X
TP−ul
2
2
β`,j,k
Ij,m
=
δm,k =
β`,j,m
`6=j k=0
`∈Lj (r)
(`,k)∈UTP

(57)

`6=j
`∈Lj (r)
(`,m)∈UTP

10 This assumption is made for the sake of clarity and simplicity. In the
absence of this assumption, the BS will have to estimate and remove YjTP
from Yj before estimating the channels of the users in USP .

10

SP−ul
Ij,m
=

L−1
X K−1
X
1
2
β`,j,m
.
2
(Cu − τ ) λ

(58)

`=0 k=0
(`,k)∈USP

From the above equations, the total cost due to UL inter/intracell interference can be expressed as
I (UTP , USP ) =

L−1
X K−1
X
`=0 k=0

TP−ul
I`,k
1{(`,k)∈UTP }

SP−ul
+ I`,k
1{(`,k)∈USP }



(59)

Using (59) as the objective function, the sets UTP and USP
can be obtained as the solution of the following optimization
problem
(UTP , USP ) = arg min I (UTP , USP )
UTP ⊆U
USP ⊆U

subject to UTP ∪ USP = U

UTP ∩ USP = ∅

(60)

where U is the set of all users in the L cells. However,
the optimization problem in (60) is combinatorial in nature
with 2Card(U ) possible choices for UTP and USP , making
it computationally hard to obtain the optimal solution. A
workaround is to employ a greedy approach to partition U
into UTP and USP
. Ateach step of this algorithm, given UTP
˜ k̃ in UTP is chosen as
and USP , a user `,



˜ k̃ = arg
`,

max

(`,k)∈UTP

TP−ul
I`,k
.

(61)

 
 
0
˜ k̃ and U 0 = USP ∪ `,
˜ k̃ , user
Setting UTP
= UTP \ `,
SP
 
˜ k̃ is added to USP if
`,
0
0
I (UTP
, USP
) ≤ I (UTP , USP ) .

(62)

The algorithm is initialized with UTP = U and is terminated
when (62) is no longer satisfied or when UTP is empty. The
approach described above is summarized in Algorithm 1.
The complexity of the greedy algorithm used for designing
the hybrid system can be obtained as follows. The terms
I TP−ul and I SP−ul require a maximum of Card (U) operations to compute, and therefore, computing I (UTP , USP )
2
requires Card (U) operations. Assuming that the greedy
algorithm runs till the condition UTP = ∅ is satisfied, then an
upper bound on the computational complexity of the greedy
3
algorithm is Card (U) operations. Moreover, an overhead of
2Card (U) data transmissions is required for sending the largescale path-loss coefficients to a central node and receiving the
sets UTP and USP .
It has to be noted that Algorithm 1 is sub-optimal, but it is
useful for illustrating the concept of the hybrid system. Partitioning algorithms that offer superior performance compared
to Algorithm 1 with lower coordination overhead are left as
topics for future research.

Algorithm 1 Greedy algorithm to select UTP and USP
Data: βj,`,k , ∀j, ` = 0, . . . , L − 1, k = 0, . . . , K − 1
Initialize: UTP
 ← U, USP ← ∅
˜ k̃ as in (61)
1: Compute `,
 
 
0
˜ k̃ and U 0 ← USP ∪ `,
˜ k̃
2: Set UTP
← UTP \ `,
SP
0
0
3: if UTP 6= ∅ and if I (UTP
, USP
) ≤ I (UTP , USP ) then
0
0
4:
UTP := UTP , USP := USP
5:
Return to Step (1).
6: else
7:
STOP
8: end if

VIII. S IMULATION R ESULTS
We compare the UL SINR and UL bit-error rate (BER)
performance of the LS-based and eigenvalue decomposition (EVD)-based methods (referred to as ‘TP - EVD-based
method’ in the plots) that use time-multiplexed pilots to the
performance of the channel estimator that uses superimposed
pilots, at the output of a MF that employs these channel
estimates. Two scenarios are considered for this comparison.
Scenario 1: The users are uniformly distributed in hexagonal cells of radius 1km with the BS at the center. In
addition, users are located at a distance of at least 100m
from the BS.
Scenario 2: Users in both the reference and interfering
cells are in a fixed configuration and are equally spaced
on a circle of a given radius with the BS in the center. The
size of the hexagonal cell is 1km and unless otherwise
specified, the users are on a circle of radius 800m.
Unless otherwise specified, the following parameters are used
in both scenarios. The channel estimation methods are tested
with L = 7 cells and K = 5 users per cell. A P QAM constellation is employed and the path-loss coefficient
is assumed to be 3. The simulations for the superimposed
pilots-based iterative channel estimation scheme have been
performed for 4 iterations. The number of symbols in the
uplink time slot Cu is set to 100, and for computing the
rate, C is set to 200 symbols. The values of ρ and λ are
computed from (31) and (32), respectively, and ω is set to 1,
where ω is the design parameter in the statistics-aware power
control scheme. The signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), i.e., ω/σ 2 is
set to 10dB. The methods based on time-multiplexed pilots
have been simulated with r = 1 and pu = 1. In addition,
the chosen channel estimation methods have been observed to
perform better with the statistics aware-power control scheme,
and therefore, this power control scheme has been employed
for both time-multiplexed and superimposed pilots. The plots
in Scenario 1 are generated by averaging over 104 realizations
of user locations across the cell. For each realization of user
location, the channel vectors are generated and 200 bits are
transmitted per user. The BER is computed by counting the
bit errors for all the users in the reference cell. Similarly, the
plots in Scenario 2 are generated for a fixed user location
by averaging over 104 channel realizations with 200 bits
transmitted per user for each realization.

11

2

22
SP - Ufixed

Approximate Rate - bits/s/Hz

18

(i)

SINR

14

10

6

2
100

200
300
400
500
Number of antennas at the BS (M )

1.4
1.2
1

200
300
400
500
Number of antennas at the BS (M )

600

10−1
(i)
Um

SP - Optimal
SP - Non-iterative
TP

10−2

0.7
0.6
BER

Cumulative Probability

1.6

Fig. 3. Approximate per-user UL rate obtained using a 16-QAM constellation vs. M in the reference BS in Scenario 2. The maximum UL rate that
can be achieved with the 16-QAM constellation, with half the symbols in a
coherence blocked used for UL transmission, is 2 bps/Hz.

1

0.8

1.8

0.8
100

600

Fig. 2. The UL SINR of a user in the reference BS vs. M in Scenario 2.
The values of ρ and λ are computed from (31) and (32), respectively, and
since they are approximations, they result in a non-smooth SINR behavior
for the iterative methods. The solid and dashed lines represent simulated and
theoretical curves, respectively.

0.9

SP - Optimal Um
SP - Ufixed
SP - Non-iterative
TP

(i)

SP - Optimal Um
SP - Non-iterative
TP

0.5

10−3

0.4
(i)

0.3

SP - Optimal Um
SP - Ufixed
SP - Non-iterative
TP - EVD based method in [14]
TP - LS Estimate

−4

10
0.2
0.1
0
−5

0

5

10

15

20

UL SINR (dB)

10−5

1

2

3

4
5
6
7
8
Number of users per cell (K)

9

10

Fig. 4. Cumulative distribution of the UL SINR in dBs for users in Scenario
1 with M = 300 antennas. The black line indicates SINRs with probability
≥ 0.95.

Fig. 5. BER in the UL vs. K in Scenario 1 with M/K = 50 and Cu = 70
symbols.

Fig. 2 shows the variation of the UL SINR of an arbitrary
user with respect to M in Scenario 2, whereas in Fig. 3,
the approximate rate of an arbitrary user, calculated using
16-QAM constellation, is plotted for the same scenario. We
compute the achievable rate for 16-QAM signaling, modeling
a practical scenario where highly mobile users are requesting
moderate-to-high data rates. The SINR when the proposed
method is employed, is shown to linearly increase in the
number of antennas, whereas the SINR performance is observed to saturate for the LS-based method that uses timemultiplexed pilots. This trajectory of the proposed method
could be potentially maintained using techniques such as
adaptive modulation and coding, thereby implying that the
effects of pilot contamination can be eliminated.

over 100 channel and data realizations for each realization
of user location. While the LS-based method employing
time-multiplexed pilots offers a higher SINR than the LS
method employing superimposed pilots with a probability of
approximately 0.6, the latter method can be seen to offer a
significantly higher minimum SINR compared to the former
method. Moreover, the users employing superimposed pilots
have a smaller variation in their SINR than those employing
time-multiplexed pilots. This is because the SINR of a user
when superimposed pilots are employed is limited by the
interference from the other users in the same cell, and the
statistics-aware power control scheme renders the intra-cell
interference power independent of the user location within
the cell. The iterative method based on superimposed pilots
is observed to offer a remarkably higher SINR performance
with respect to its non-iterative counterpart and the LS-based

In Fig. 4, the cumulative distribution of the UL SINR in
Scenario 1 is plotted. The interference power is averaged

12

ω
.
SIRRx
j , P P 2
βj,`,k

(63)

`6=j k

We assume L = 19 hexagonal cells, i.e., a central cell with
two tiers of interfering cells. Each cell has M = 1000
antennas, K = 5 users, and the value of Cu is chosen as 40
symbols. Although L is set to 19, the optimization described in
Algorithm 1 and the computation of the performance metrics
is performed over 7 cells which consist of the central and the
first tier of cells. The value of ω for users in USP is set to
10 and pu for the users in UTP is set to 1. The data symbols
are Gaussian distributed and the sum rate in Fig. 6 is obtained
by averaging over 103 realizations of the channel and data
symbols.
In Fig. 6, high and low values of SIR correspond to users
located close to the BS and at the cell-edge, respectively. It
can be observed that channel estimation methods based only
on superimposed pilots (even the non-iterative formulation) are
better in high interference scenarios, i.e., when the interfering
users are at the cell-edge, whereas time-multiplexed pilots are
better in low-interference scenarios. This behavior is a direct
consequence of Theorem 1 since higher interference scenarios
have smaller values of κ, resulting in superimposed pilots
outperforming time-multiplexed pilots. However, at smaller
values of user radius, the impact of pilot contamination is low
but the self-interference in superimposed pilots resulting from
transmitting the data alongside the pilots leads to a poorer
performance compared to methods based on time-multiplexed
pilots. In addition, it can be seen that the hybrid system adapts
to the level of inter and intra-cell interference and offers a
performance that is resilient to the location of the user within
the cell.

140
Hybrid
TP
SP - Non-iterative

120
UL Sum Rate - bits/s/Hz

method employing time-multiplexed pilots.
In Fig. 5, the BER is plotted against the number of users
per cell in Scenario 1, with K ranging from 1 to 10 and
Cu = 70 symbols. Since L = 7 cells, K = 10 implies
that the superimposed pilot-based system cannot support any
new users without sharing pilots across cells. The ratio M/K
is set to 50. While the non-iterative channel estimator based
on superimposed pilots performs better in the UL at lower
values of K than the estimators based on time-multiplexed
pilots, the non-iterative estimator performs poorly at higher
values of K. This is because the data transmitted alongside
the pilots causes self-interference and this interference power
increases with the number of users in the system. Therefore,
it is necessary to resort to iterative techniques to mitigate this
additional interference and it can be seen that the iterative
methods offer a better performance than methods based on
time-multiplexed pilots when LK is close to Cu .
In Fig. 6, the users are distributed as in Scenario 2 and the
distance of the users from the BS is varied between 0.2 and
0.9 km. For the chosen range of user distance, the total rate
in the UL is plotted against the corresponding received signalto-interference ratio (SIR). The received SIR of an arbitrary
user m in cell j is defined as

100
80
60
40
20
0
−10

0

10

20

30

40

50

SIRRx
(dB)
j

Fig. 6. UL sum rate vs. SIRRx
in Scenario 2 with M = 1000 antennas.
j

IX. C ONCLUSION AND D ISCUSSION
We have proposed superimposed pilots as a superior alternative to time-multiplexed data and pilots for uplink channel
estimation in massive MIMO. In the limit of an infinite
number of antennas, a hybrid system using both superimposed
pilots and time-multiplexed data and pilots offers a higher
UL rate and supports larger number of users than the optimal
system that utilizes only time-multiplexed data and pilots. The
resilience to pilot contamination can be significantly improved
with superimposed pilots through the use of an iterative dataaided channel estimation scheme that utilizes the data symbols
of both the desired and interfering users in the feedback loop.
Computer simulations in both a realistic scenario, in which
users are distributed uniformly over the entire cell, and a highinterference scenario, in which users are concentrated at the
cell edge, show that channel estimation methods using superimposed pilots offer a significant performance improvement
over those that use time-multiplexed pilots.
The objective of this paper is to advocate superimposed
pilots for practical use in massive MIMO systems by showing
their superiority through theoretical and simulation based
investigations. In standard MIMO communications, superimposed pilots are typically argued to be useful only for the
scenario with high user mobility, and therefore, have not found
practical application. On the contrary, in massive MIMO,
superimposed pilots in a hybrid system provide superior
performance in general. Therefore, there is a strong reason
for superimposed pilots to make their way to practical use.
The proposed iterative data-aided channel estimation
scheme and the greedy algorithm for partitioning users are
suboptimal solutions to corresponding non-convex problems.
Algorithms that offer performance close to the optimal solution at low computational complexities and overheads are
of interest for future research. Moreover, the downlink performance of superimposed pilots is another topic of practical
importance, which we have partially addressed in [28].

13

N
−1 N
−1
X
X

ρ2k βn βk µn
E ki2 k2 + ki3 k2 + ki4 k2 ≈
2
M λ2m ρ2m βm
n=0

A PPENDIX A
Uplink SINR of the Non-Iterative Channel Estimation Method
Using the notation described in Section V-A, (7) can be
rewritten as
N
−1
X
T
Y=
hm (ρm xm + λm pm ) + W
(64)

k=0
n6=m k6=n

N
−1 N
−1
X
X
ρ2n ρ2p βp βn
ρ2n µn βn2
+
+
2
λ2 ρ2 β 2
Cu ρ2m λ2m βm
n=0 p=0
n=0 m m m
N
−1
X

n6=m p6=m
n6=p

m=0

N
−1 N
−1
X
X

ρ2n ρ2p βn βp
E ki5 k2 ≈
2
Cu λ2m ρ2m βm
n=0 p=0

From (9), the estimation error of the channel estimate can be
obtained as
!
N
−1
X
1
T
bm = −
∆hm , hm − h
ρk hk xk + W p∗m .
Cu λm
k=0
(65)
From (10) and (65), the estimate of the received data after MF
with the estimated channel can be written as


1
b m pT
b H Y − λm h
eTm =
h
x
m
m
M ρ m βm

1
=
hH − ∆hH
m
M ρ m βm m
N
−1
X
T
×
hk (ρk xk + λk pk ) + W
k=0

−λm (hm − ∆hm ) pTm = gT + iT

(66)

where g and i are the signal and interference components of
the matched filtered signal, respectively, which can be written
as
khm k2
g,
xm
(67)
M βm
5
X
in
(68)
i,
i1 ,

n=1
N
−1
X
n=0
n6=m

(69)

λm
hH ∆hm pm
(70)
M ρ m βm m
1
i3 , −
∆hH
(71)
m hm xm
M βm
T
N
−1
X
∆hH
1
mW
H
∆hm hn (λn pn + ρn xn ) −
i4 , −
M ρm βm n=0
M ρ m βm
i2 ,

(77)

n6=m p6=m
n6=p

E



N
−1 N
−1
X
X

ρ2n ρ2p βn βp
H
i
≈
−
iH
+
i
5
3
4
2
Cu λ2m ρ2m βm
p=0 n=0

(78)

p6=m n6=m
n6=p

where the approximation errors in (75) – (78) are proportional
to either N/M , N/Cu , or Cu /M . In addition, the remaining
terms of the form iH
n ip , ∀ n 6= p in the expansion of (74) are
proportional to N/M or N/Cu . If M is large with respect to
N and Cu , then the approximation errors and terms that are
proportional to N/M and N/Cu can be neglected. Similarly,
error terms that are proportional to N/Cu can also be dropped,
and if σ 2  Cu , then the effect of noise can also be neglected.
Then, substituting (75) – (78) into the expansion of (74), the
interference power is obtained as
N
−1
N
−1
X
X

ρ2n µn βn2
Cu βn µn
E kik2 ≈
+
2 ρ2 β 2
λ
M
ρ2m βm
n=0 m m m
n=0
n6=m

+

T

hH W
hH
m hn
(λn pn + ρn xn ) + m
M ρm β m
M ρm β m

(76)

−1
N
−1 N
X
X

ρ2k βn βk µn
2
M λ2m ρ2m βm
n=0 k=0
n6=m k6=n

.

(79)

Using (79), the SINR can be obtained as

E kgk2
SINRSP−ul
,
m
E {kik2 }
Cu
= N −1
.
−1 NP
−1 2
N
−1
P ρ2n µn βn2
P Cu βn µn NP
ρk βn βk µn
+
+
λ2 ρ2 β 2
M ρ 2 βm
M λ2 ρ2 β 2
n=0

m m

m

n=0
n6=m

m

n=0 k=0
n6=m k6=n

m m

m

(80)

n6=m

(72)
λm
i5 , −
k∆hm k2 pm .
M ρ m βm
The average interference power can be found as


2
5
 X

 2
E kik = E
in
.



(73)

(i)

(74)

Then, using the definitions of in , ∀ n in (69) – (73) and the
definition of ∆hm in (65), the following expressions can be
easily obtained
N
−1
X
Cu
βn µn
M ρ2m βm n=0
n6=m

A PPENDIX B
Interference Power of the Iterative Method

n=1


E ki1 k2 ≈

It completes the derivation of (12).

(75)

To derive the SINR, using the definition of ∆xm , xm −
the channel estimate in (38) can be simplified as


T
X
X
(i)
b (i) x
b (i) = hm + 1  ρk hk xT −
bk
ρk h
h
k
m
k
Cu λm
k
k∈Uj ,k<m


T
X
(i−1)
b (i−1) x
bk
−
ρk h
+ Wj  p∗m
(81)
k

(i)
bm ,
x

k∈Uj ,m≤k≤N

14

where


 
T
1  X
(i)
(i)
ρk hk ∆xk
+ ∆hk xTk
Cu λm
k∈Uj ,k<m
 

T 
T
X
(i)
(i)
(i−1)
(i−1) T
−∆hk ∆xk
+
ρk hk ∆xk
+∆hk
xk

∆h(i)
m =−

k∈Uj ,m≤k≤N

(i−1)
−∆hk



(i−1)
∆xk

T 

!
+

X

ρk hk xTk + W

p∗m .

k∈U
/ j

(82)

The received symbols after MF in (39) are then given as

−1
H  NX

1
T
H
(i)
hm− ∆hm
hk (ρk xk + λk pk )
=
M ρm
 k=0


T
p
+W − λm hm − ∆h(i)
m
m

bTm
x

7

=

X
1
khm k2 xTm +
aTk
M

(83)

k=1

where
N −1
1 X H
a1 ,
hm hk (ρk xk + λk pk )
M ρm

T
1
hH
mW
M ρm
λm H
a3 ,
h ∆h(i)
m pm
M ρm m


H
1
∆h(i)
a4 , −
hm xm
m
M
N −1
1 X  (i) H
∆hm
a5 , −
hk (ρk xk + λk pk )
M ρm

(84)

(85)
(86)


H T
1
∆h(i)
W
m
M ρm
2
λm
a7 , −
∆h(i)
pm .
m
M ρm

(87)
(88)

(89)
(90)

k=1

where the terms a6 , a7 , and aH
p aq , ∀p, q have been dropped.
Further, it can be shown straightforwardly that
N −1

Cu X
β k βm
E ka1 k2 =
M ρ2m

(92)

2

E ka2 k

Cu σ 2 βm
=
.
M ρ2m

E ka5 k


N
−1 N
−1 
H
X
X
1
(i)
H
(i)
= 2 2
E
∆hm
h` hk ∆hm
M ρm
`=0 k=0
`6=m k6=m

n
o
H
× E (ρ` x` + λ` p` ) (ρk xk + λk pk )






N
−1




X
H
Cu

H
(i)
h
h
∆h
.
(96)
∆h(i)
= 2 2 E

k k 
m
m

M ρm 


k=0
Summing up (94), (95), and (96), we obtain
( 5
)
X
Cu
2
E
kak k
= 2 2
M ρm
k=3
(
!
)
−1

H NX
(i)
H
(i)
×E
∆hm
hk hk ∆hm
.

(97)

(i)

Now, let ψm be defined as the second term in (97), i.e.,
(
!
)
−1

H NX
(i)
(i)
ψm
,E
∆hm
hn hH
∆h(i)
. (98)
n
m
i≥1
Using (82) and the simplifications (S1) to (S4), (98) can be
simplified to obtain (42). Substituting (92), (93), (97), and (42)
(i)
into (91), Im can be obtained as
(i)
Im
≈

N −1
σ 2 βm
1
1 X
(i)
β
β
+
+ 2 2 ψm
.
k
m
M ρ2m
M ρ2m
M ρm

(99)

k=0
k6=m

It completes the derivation of (41).
A PPENDIX C
(i)

Choice of the Set of Users Um

Let S be a set of the KL users in the system and let P (S)
be its power set. In addition, for the sake of clarity, let the
(i)
(i)
additional argument Um be added to the functions Im and
(i)
(i)
ψm in this section. Now, the optimal set Um can be obtained
by solving the following optimization problem
n
o
(i)
(i)
Um
= arg min Im
(U) .
(100)
U ∈P(S)

k=0
k6=m



2

n=0

Under the assumption that the interference power at each of the
received symbols is the same, the average interference power
of the m’th user at the j’th cell is given as


" ( 5
)#
2
7
 X

X
1
1
(i)
E
E
kak k2
(91)
Im
=
ak
≈
 Cu
Cu 
k=1



k=0

k=0
k6=m

a6 , −

and

k6=m

k=0
k6=m

a2 ,




Moreover, E ka3 k2 , E ka4 k2 , and E ka5 k2 can be
written as



H

λ2m
2
H
(i) T ∗
(i)
E ka3 k = 2 2 E hm ∆hm pm pm ∆hm
hm
M ρm



H
Cu λ2
(i)
(i)
E
∆h
hm hH
(94)
= 2 m
m
m ∆hm
M ρ2m


H

1
(i)
E ka4 k2 = 2 E
∆h(i)
hm xTm x∗m hH
m
m ∆hm
M


H
1 
(i)
(i)
= 2 E xTm x∗m E
∆hm
hm hH
∆h
m
m
M



H
Cu
(i)
= 2E
∆h(i)
hm hH
(95)
m
m ∆hm
M

(93)

Substituting (41) into (100) yields
n
o
(i)
(i)
Um
= arg min ψm
(U) .
U ∈P(S)

(101)

15

(i)

Now, ψm (U) can be rewritten as
(i)
ψm
(U) = c +

N
−1 n
X
n=0

(i)
ξn 1{n∈U
/ } + n (U)1{n∈U ,n<m}

+(i−1)
(U)1{n∈U ,n≥m}
n

o

(102)

(i)

where c, ξn , and n (U) are defined as
!
N −1
M σ2 X
βk
c,
Cu λ2m
k=0
(
)
N −1
1 X
M 2 ρ2n
2
βn +
βk βn
ξn ,
Cu λ2m
M
k=0
(
N
−1
2 2
X
M
ρ
1
n
2 (i)
(i)
β
α
+
βk βn αn(i)
n (U) ,
n
n
Cu λ2m
M
k=0



(i)

1 + αn
(i)
+
ψ
(U)
.
n

M2

(103)

(i)

n∈Um

(i)
< ψm

(i)

n∈U
/ m

.

The decision rule in (112) results in a set Ufixed that is
computed at the beginning of the first iteration and is left
unchanged for the subsequent iterations.

(104)

A PPENDIX D
Derivation of

(105)

(i)
αm

for a P -QAM constellation

For P -QAM constellation and i ≥ 1, the integral over xm
in (44) reduces to a summation, which can be written as
XZ
2
(i)
αm =
|x − η (x − e)| pe(i) (e) pxm (x) de . (113)
m

x∈χ

It can be seen from (102) that the optimization problem (101)
is separable over the user indices, implying that the decision
(i)
to include user n in Um is independent of the other N − 1
users. Therefore, the channel and data estimates of user n are
used in the i’th iteration if the following condition is satisfied
(i)
(i)
n ∈ Um
iff ψm

However, since the decision rules are based on approximate
SINR expressions, it is worth commenting that the reliability
of the decision rule in (108) decreases with increasing user
and iteration indices. Alternatively, a fixed and conservative
decision rule can be used to obtain U as follows
n
o
(2)
(2)
(1)
Ufixed = m ∈ N Im
({m}) < Im
(∅) = Im
(∅) .
(112)

(106)

Since the P symbols are equally likely, pxm (x) = 1/P, ∀ x
and under the assumption that the errors x − η (x − e) are
dominated by the closest neighboring symbols, the above
equation reduces to


dx
X
1
(i)
d2 kx Q  q 2 (i) 
(114)
αm
=
P x∈χ x
Im
2

(i)

From (102) and (106), the set Um is obtained as
n
(i)
Um
= n ∈ N (i)
n (U) < ξn when n < m
o
and (i−1)
(U) < ξn when n ≥ m .
n

(107)

Equivalently, using (104) and (105), the above expression
simplifies to
n
(i)
Um
= n ∈ N αn(i) < γn(i) when n < m
o
and αn(i−1) < γn(i−1) when n ≥ m
(108)
where
(
βn2
γn(i)

+

1
M

,(
βn2

+

1
M

NP
−1
k=0
NP
−1
k=0

βn βk −

(i)
ψn

)
(i)
n∈Um
M2

βn βk +

(0)

).

(i)

ψn

where dx is the distance between the symbol x and its closest
neighbor and kx is the number of symbols at a distance of dx
from x. The Q-function in the above equation results from the
(i)
assumption on the statistics
of em . For a unit-power P -QAM
p
constellation, dx = 6/P − 1, ∀x [29]. In addition, it can be
easily verified
that kx = 2 for the 4 corner symbols, kx = 3
√
for the ( P − 2)4 symbols
√ on the outer edges, and kx = 4
for the remaining P − 4 P + 4 symbols. Substituting these
values into (114) yields
s

3
24
−1)
(i)
 .
 Q  (P (i)
αm
= √ √
(115)
i≥1
Im
P
P +1

(109)

(i)
n∈Um
M2

R EFERENCES

If xm takes values from the P -QAM constellation, then
(i)
substituting (45) into (108), the set Um can be obtained as
n
(i)
Um
= n ∈ N In(i) < fn(i) when n < m
o
and In(i) < fn(i−1) when n ≥ m
(110)
(i)

where fn is defined as

 √ √

(i)
P
P + 1 γn
3
 .
fn(i) ,
Q2 
P −1
24

(0)

Moreover, since ∆x`,m = x`,m , the value of αm is 1. It
completes the derivation of (45).

(111)

[1] T. Marzetta, “Noncooperative cellular wireless with unlimited numbers
of base station antennas,” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 9, no. 11,
pp. 3590–3600, Nov. 2010.
[2] F. Boccardi, R. Heath, 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.
[3] E. Larsson, O. Edfors, F. Tufvesson, and T. Marzetta, “Massive MIMO
for next generation wireless systems,” IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 52,
no. 2, pp. 186–195, Feb. 2014.
[4] J. Andrews, S. Buzzi, W. Choi, S. Hanly, A. Lozano, A. Soong, and
J. Zhang, “What will 5G be?” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 32,
no. 6, pp. 1065–1082, Jun. 2014.
[5] L. Lu, G. Li, A. Swindlehurst, A. Ashikhmin, and R. Zhang, “An
overview of massive MIMO: Benefits and challenges,” IEEE J. Sel.
Topics Signal Process., vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 742–758, Oct. 2014.

16

[6] F. Rusek, D. Persson, B. K. Lau, E. Larsson, T. Marzetta, O. Edfors,
and F. Tufvesson, “Scaling up MIMO: Opportunities and challenges with
very large arrays,” IEEE Signal Process. Mag., vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 40–60,
Jan. 2013.
[7] 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. Sel.
Areas Commun., vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 160–171, Feb. 2013.
[8] H. Yang and T. Marzetta, “Performance of conjugate and zero-forcing
beamforming in large-scale antenna systems,” IEEE J. Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 172–179, Feb. 2013.
[9] H. Q. Ngo, E. Larsson, and T. Marzetta, “Energy and spectral efficiency
of very large multiuser MIMO systems,” IEEE Trans. Commun., vol. 61,
no. 4, pp. 1436–1449, Apr. 2013.
[10] E. Bjornson, J. Hoydis, M. Kountouris, and M. Debbah, “Massive
MIMO systems with non-ideal hardware: Energy efficiency, estimation,
and capacity limits,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 60, no. 11, pp. 7112–
7139, Nov. 2014.
[11] E. Björnson, E. G. Larsson, and T. L. Marzetta, “Massive MIMO: ten
myths and one critical question,” IEEE Commun. Mag., vol. 54, no. 2,
pp. 114–123, Feb. 2016.
[12] J. Jose, A. Ashikhmin, T. 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.
[13] H. Q. Ngo and E. Larsson, “EVD-based channel estimation in multicell
multiuser MIMO systems with very large antenna arrays,” in Proc. IEEE
Int. Conf. on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (ICASSP), Kyoto,
Mar. 2012, pp. 3249–3252.
[14] R. Muller, L. Cottatellucci, and M. Vehkapera, “Blind pilot decontamination,” IEEE J. Sel. Topics Signal Process., vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 773–786,
Oct. 2014.
[15] J. Vinogradova, E. Björnson, and E. G. Larsson, “On the separability
of signal and interference-plus-noise subspaces in blind pilot decontamination,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. on Acoustics, Speech and Signal
Processing (ICASSP), Mar. 2016, pp. 3421–3425.
[16] H. Yin, D. Gesbert, M. Filippou, and Y. Liu, “A coordinated approach
to channel estimation in large-scale multiple-antenna systems,” IEEE J.
Sel. Areas Commun., vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 264–273, Feb. 2013.
[17] K. Upadhya and S. A. Vorobyov, “An array processing approach to pilot
decontamination for massive MIMO,” in Proc. IEEE 6th Int. Workshop
on Computational Advances in Multi-Sensor Adaptive Processing (CAMSAP), Cancun, Dec. 2015, pp. 453–456.
[18] E. Björnson, E. G. Larsson, and M. Debbah, “Massive MIMO for
maximal spectral efficiency: How many users and pilots should be
allocated?” IEEE Trans. Wireless Commun., vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 1293–
1308, Feb. 2016.
[19] K. Takeuchi, R. R. Müller, M. Vehkaperä, and T. Tanaka, “On an
achievable rate of large rayleigh block-fading MIMO channels with no
CSI,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory, vol. 59, no. 10, pp. 6517–6541, Oct.
2013.
[20] S. He, J. Tugnait, and X. Meng, “On superimposed training for MIMO
channel estimation and symbol detection,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process.,
vol. 55, no. 6, pp. 3007–3021, Jun. 2007.
[21] M. Coldrey and P. Bohlin, “Training-based MIMO systems – part I:
Performance comparison,” IEEE Trans. Signal Process., vol. 55, no. 11,
pp. 5464–5476, Nov. 2007.
[22] H. Zhu, B. Farhang-Boroujeny, and C. Schlegel, “Pilot embedding for
joint channel estimation and data detection in MIMO communication
systems,” IEEE Commun. Lett., vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 30–32, Jan. 2003.
[23] T. Cui and C. Tellambura, “Pilot symbols for channel estimation in
OFDM systems,” in Proc. IEEE Global Telecommunications Conf.
(GLOBECOM), St. Louis, vol. 4, Dec. 2005, pp. 5 pp.–2233.
[24] M. Ghogho, D. McLernon, E. Alameda-Hernandez, and A. Swami,
“Channel estimation and symbol detection for block transmission using
data-dependent superimposed training,” IEEE Signal Process. Lett.,
vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 226–229, Mar. 2005.
[25] K. Upadhya, S. A. Vorobyov, and M. Vehkapera, “Superimposed pilots:
An alternative pilot structure to mitigate pilot contamination in massive
MIMO,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Conf. on Acoustics, Speech and Signal
Processing (ICASSP), Shanghai, Mar. 2016, pp. 3366–3370.
[26] H. Zhang, S. Gao, D. Li, H. Chen, and L. Yang, “On superimposed
pilot for channel estimation in multi-cell multiuser MIMO uplink: Large
system analysis,” IEEE Trans. Veh. Technol., vol. 65, no. 3, pp. 1492–
1505, Mar. 2016.
[27] C. Cox, An introduction to LTE: LTE, LTE-advanced, SAE and 4G
mobile communications, 2nd ed. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons,
2012.

[28] K. Upadhya, S. A. Vorobyov, and M. Vehkapera, “Downlink performance of superimposed pilots in massive MIMO systems in the presence
of pilot contamination,” in Proc. IEEE Global Conf. on Signal and
Information Processing (GlobalSIP), Washington D.C., Dec. 2016, pp.
665–669.
[29] J. Proakis and M. Salehi, Digital Communications. McGraw-Hill, 2008.

Karthik Upadhya received the B.E. degree in electronics and communication engineering from Visvesvaraya Technological University, India in 2007 and
the M.Tech degree in communication systems from
Indian Institute of Technology Madras, India in
2011. He is currently a Ph.D. student at Aalto
University, Finland. His research interests include
wireless communications and array signal processing. Before joining the Ph.D. program, he worked
as a Member of Technical Staff at Saankhya Labs,
India from 2011 to 2013 and as a research assistant
at the Indian Institute of Science (IISc), India from 2013 to 2014.

Sergiy Vorobyov (M’02-SM’05) received the M.Sc.
and Ph.D. degrees in systems and control from
Kharkiv National University of Radio Electronics,
Ukraine, in 1994 and 1997, respectively. He is a Professor with the Department of Signal Processing and
Acoustics, Aalto University, Finland. He has been
previously with the University of Alberta, Alberta,
Canada as an Assistant Professor from 2006 to 2010,
Associate Professor from 2010 to 2012, and became
Full Professor there in 2012. Since his graduation,
he also held various research and faculty positions
at Kharkiv National University of Radio Electronics, Ukraine; the Institute
of Physical and Chemical Research (RIKEN), Japan; McMaster University,
Canada; Duisburg-Essen University and Darmstadt University of Technology,
Germany; and the Joint Research Institute between Heriot-Watt University
and Edinburgh University, U.K. His research interests include optimization
and liner algebra methods in signal processing and communications; statistical
and array signal processing; sparse signal processing; estimation and detection
theory; sampling theory; and multi-antenna, very large, cooperative, and
cognitive systems.
Dr. Vorobyov is a recipient of the 2004 IEEE Signal Processing Society
Best Paper Award, the 2007 Alberta Ingenuity New Faculty Award, the 2011
Carl Zeiss Award (Germany), the 2012 NSERC Discovery Accelerator Award,
and other awards. He is serving as Area Editor for IEEE Signal Processing
Letters since 2016. He served as an Associate Editor for the IEEE Transactions
on Signal Processing from 2006 to 2010 and for the IEEE Transactions
on Signal Processing Letters from 2007 to 2009. He was a member of the
Sensor Array and Multi-Channel Signal Processing and Signal Processing for
Communications and Networking Technical Committees of the IEEE Signal
Processing Society from 2007 to 2012 and from 2010 to 2016, respectively.
He has served as the Track Chair for Asilomar 2011, Pacific Grove, CA, the
Technical Co-Chair for IEEE CAMSAP 2011, Puerto Rico, and the Tutorial
Chair for ISWCS 2013, Ilmenau, Germany.

Mikko Vehkapera (M’10) received the Ph.D. degree from Norwegian University of Science and
Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway, in 2010.
Between 2010–2013 he was a post-doctoral researcher at School of Electrical Engineering, and the
ACCESS Linnaeus Center, KTH Royal Institute of
Technology, Sweden, and 2013–2015 an Academy
of Finland Postdoctoral Researcher at Aalto University School of Electrical Engineering, Finland.
He is now an assistant professor (lecturer) at University of Sheffield, Department of Electronic and
Electrical Engineering, United Kingdom. He held visiting appointments at
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), US, Kyoto University and
Tokyo Institute of Technology, Japan, and University of Erlangen-Nuremberg,
Germany. His research interests are in the field of wireless communications,
information theory and signal processing. Dr. Vehkapera was a co-recipient for
the Best Student Paper Award at IEEE International Conference on Networks
(ICON2011) and IEEE Sweden Joint VT-COM-IT Chapter Best Student
Conference Paper Award 2015.

